Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01828-19/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. KAUR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1828 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is before the court.

Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice of various “facts” contained in various 

filings by plaintiff and defendant, and asks the court to issue a citation for contempt based on 

defense counsel’s alleged perjury in connection with the court’s order granting defendant an 

extension of time, nunc pro tunc (ECF No. 56). 

A “high degree of indisputability is the essential prerequisite” to taking judicial notice and 

“the tradition [of taking judicial notice] has been one of caution in requiring that the matter be 

beyond reasonable controversy.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) & (b) advisory committee’s notes. A 

court, then, may take judicial notice of undisputed facts contained in public records, but it may 

not take judicial notice of disputed ones. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th 

Cir. 2001); Lee v. Bender, 2005 WL 1388968, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2005) (“Court filings and 

Case 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN Document 95 Filed 04/07/20 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

27

28

2

orders are the type of documents that are properly noticed under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. 

Notice can be taken, however, ‘only for the limited purpose of recognizing the judicial act that the 

order [or filing] represents on the subject matter of the litigation.’”) (quoting United States v. 

Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

As demonstrated by the filings cited by plaintiff, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice 

relies on disputed facts and therefore is not properly subject to judicial notice. Plaintiff’s request 

for judicial notice (ECF No. 60) is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (ECF 

No. 60) is denied.

Dated: April 7, 2020

/spen1828.rjn

Case 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN Document 95 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 2