Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00226-7/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

RICHARD A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(ECF Nos. 40)

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

NOTICES

(ECF Nos. 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46)

Plaintiff Richard Evans (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint is currently awaiting screening.

On February 13, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff a third extension of time to file his first 

amended complaint, after reviewing several “notices” Plaintiff had filed relating to various issues 

regarding the law librarian at his current institution, his desire to make copies of certain legal 

documents, and conflicts with the library schedule. (ECF No. 32.) As Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint was still due at that time, the Court construed the notices as an indication of Plaintiff’s 

need for additional time to access the law library in order to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff 

was provided with the legal standards for judicially noticeable facts, and informed that none of 

the documents submitted contained the types of facts that are judicially noticeable. Plaintiff was 

also warned that, in the future, documents requesting a court order must be styled as a “motion,” 

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 04/10/20 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

rather than a letter or a notice, and specify what relief is requested. (Id. at 2.)

Since the February 13, 2020 order was issued, Plaintiff has filed ten judicial and/or 

administrative notices, (ECF Nos. 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46), and one request for 

judicial notice, (ECF No. 40). These notices are often filed within days of one another, or several 

are filed on the same date. A majority of them contain allegations or documents regarding events 

that occurred well after this lawsuit was filed in February 2019, and none of them contain the 

types of adjudicative facts that are judicially noticeable.1 In addition, these filings are not styled 

as motions, do not request any particular form of relief, and do not explain the significance of any 

of the attached documents or letters. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, (ECF No. 40), is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s judicial and/or administrative notices, (ECF Nos. 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 

45, 46), are DISREGARDED; and

3. Plaintiff is advised that documents submitted to the Court after the date of this order that 

are not properly styled as a motion or other document recognized under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure will be stricken from the record or returned without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 As Plaintiff was previously informed, Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides 

that a court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is 

generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and 

readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Civ. 

201(b).

Case 1:19-cv-00226-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 04/10/20 Page 2 of 2