Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01783-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01783-AWI-GBC (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(ECF No. 17)

ORDER

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and is proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this

action on September 28, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint

on January 13, 2011. (ECF No. 16.) No other parties have appeared.

Pending before the Court is a motion requesting that the Court take judicial notice

of settled case law filed January 21, 2011. (ECF No. 17.) 

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of several cases: Hamilton v.

Endell, 981 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1992), Washington v. Dugger, 860 F.2d 1018 (11th Cir.

1

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 19 Filed 07/14/11 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

1988), Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir. 1970), and Williams v. O’Leary, 805

F.Supp. 634 (N.D.Ill. 1992). Plaintiff states that these cases stand for the proposition that,

if prison officials send prisoners with special needs to outside specialists, the official are

obligated to carry out the specialists orders. 

The Court may take judicial “notice of proceedings in other 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). However, “[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to

reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction

of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

Plaintiff has not offered any specific adjudicative facts and there is currently no

evidentiary proceeding before the Court in which the offering of adjudicative facts via a

request for judicial notice is appropriate (e.g., a motion for summary judgment or trial). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Request for

Judicial Notice be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 14, 2011 

1j0bbc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:10-cv-01783-DLB Document 19 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2