Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01828-3/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 The order was filed and docketed on January 16, 2007. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LYN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01828-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO LODGE EVIDENCE WITH

THE COURT AND FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Doc. 11)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

RETURN TO PLAINTIFF THE DOCUMENTS

RECEIVED ON JANUARY 16, 2007

Plaintiff David Lyn Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 8, 2007, plaintiff sent the court a stack of

documents together with a motion seeking leave to lodge the documents with the court and for

judicial notice. (Doc. 7.) The court issued an order on January 12, 2007, denying plaintiff’s motion

for leave to lodge documents and for judicial notice, and directed the Clerk’s Office to return the

documents to plaintiff. (Doc. 10.) On January16, 2007, plaintiff filed another motion seeking leave 1

to lodge documents and for judicial notice, accompanied by various documents. (Doc. 11.)

As discussed in further detail in the court’s order of January 12, 2007, the court cannot and

will not store plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff should not submit any evidence to the court until there

is a specific proceeding before the court requiring the submission of evidence (e.g., a motion for

summary judgment or a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust). There is no such motion or other

Case 1:06-cv-01828-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 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

proceeding before the court at this time. Further, it is inappropriate for plaintiff to seek judicial

notice of his documentary evidence, as the documents do not constitute facts appropriate for judicial

notice and any request for judicial notice at this juncture in the proceedings is premature in any

event. The court will not take judicial notice of facts unless the request is made in conjunction with

a timely pre-trial motion or trial.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to lodge documents with the court is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send back to plaintiff the evidence received on January 16,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01828-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2