Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00306-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Paul Eric Hebbe,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 00-0306 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

Cal A. Terhune, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDefendant requests the court take judicial notice of an

order and judgment in a different case. Plaintiff opposes.

Rule 201 of the Federal Rule of Evidence permits a court to

take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Under Ninth Circuit

precedent, “a court may not take judicial notice of proceedings

or records in another cause so as to supply, without formal

introduction of evidence, facts essential to support a contention

in a cause then before it.” M/V American Queen v. San Diego

Marine Const. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483 (9th Cir. 1983) (no abuse of 

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 79 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

discretion where trial court noticed unpublished orders from

other cases solely to identify general policy considerations

bearing on the case before it); see also Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court abused discretion by

relying on judicially noticed factual findings in one case to

decide another).

Defendants assert the facts and legal issues in Knight v.

Pliler, No. Civ. S 02-1299 GEB KJM, are “identical” to those in

this case, the court found defendants there were entitled to

qualified immunity and, “[t]here is no reason for any different

conclusion in this case.” 

Insofar as defendants want the court to rely on the facts of

Knight, Ninth Circuit precedent clearly dictates denying such a

request. Insofar as defendants seek to rely on Knight as legal

precedent, the request under Rule 201 is misplaced.

For these reasons, defendant’s April 6, 2005, request is

denied.

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:00-cv-00306-EFB Document 79 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2