Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00293-15/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALLISON, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00293 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS AS MOOT

[ECF Nos. 82, 90]

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 11, 2014, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment and dismissal of the action. Judgment was entered on the same date and the case was 

terminated.

Previously, on February 13, 2014, Plaintiff had filed a motion for leave to file an 

addendum to his request for judicial notice. Plaintiff requested that the Court take judicial notice 

of a motion for preliminary injunction filed in another Eastern District case: Mitchell v. Felker, 

Case No. 2:08-CV-1196-TLN-EFP-PC, ECF No. 156. On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

motion requesting a ruling on his motion for leave to file an addendum. 

Insofar as the case has been terminated, Plaintiff’s motions are now moot. Moreover, 

judicial notice was not warranted. The Court may take judicial “notice of proceedings in other 

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 95 Filed 08/25/14 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

courts, both within and without the federal system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 

matters at issue.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff requested judicial notice of a motion for preliminary 

injunction in a class action suit that sought to enjoin the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation from imposing lockdowns on entire racial or ethnic groups pursuant to 

statewide policy and practice. Here, however, Plaintiff argued that the lockdown imposed on 

June 22, 2009, was race-based in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court determined 

that the initial lockdown was not race-based, and that the race-based security measures imposed 

in this instance were narrowly tailored and implemented to resolve the compelling interest of 

restoring prison security and discipline. Since the motion for injunctive relief concerned 

statewide policy for imposing lockdowns, and this case was limited to the specific lockdown of 

June 22, 2009, at Plaintiff’s institution, the motion for preliminary injunction had no direct 

relation to matters at issue in this case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an addendum to his request for judicial 

notice and his motion requesting a ruling are DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00293-LJO-DLB Document 95 Filed 08/25/14 Page 2 of 2