Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00412-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Carlo Guiliano Cresci is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action 

alleging that he is being subjected to unsanitary conditions at the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and it was 

found not to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint 

within thirty days. 

On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed seven documents entitled “Judicial/Administrative Notice to 

the Courts” which he contends demonstrate the unsanitary conditions at CSATF. First, the documents 

filed by Plaintiff are not proper subjects of judicial notice. A court may take judicial notice of “a fact 

that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from 

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). However, Plaintiff 

CARLO GUILIANO CRESCI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PERKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00412-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICES TO THE COURT

(ECF Nos. 11-17)

Case 1:20-cv-00412-SAB Document 18 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 2
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

seeks to demonstrate that the conditions are unsanitary based on statements contained within his 

grievances, inmate advisory committee meeting minutes, and a memorandum regarding the cleaning 

of the ventilation system. (ECF Nos. 11-17.) These documents are not the type of matters that can be 

judicially noticed and the statements contained within are subject to reasonable dispute.

Further, the Court is not the repository for the parties evidence, and Plaintiff shall refrain from 

filing documents in this case absent a motion or pleading to which the documents are relevant. 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, “every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or 

has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented 

until this Rule has been complied with.” Local Rule 220. The Court requires that Plaintiff’s 

complaint be complete in itself and will not consider Plaintiff’s piecemeal filings when screening 

Plaintiff’s complaint.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s judicial/administrative notices to the court, filed April 3, 

2020, are HEREBY DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00412-SAB Document 18 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 2