Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-14/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

Plaintiff is reminded that discovery can only be conducted with respect to the active claims in the action 1

and Defendants who remain Defendants in the action. Plaintiff cannot conduct discovery on Defendants or issues that

have been dismissed from the case. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMED ABDALLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.C. KRAMER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5453 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL

NOTICE, TO AMEND, JUDICIAL

INTERVENTION AND FOR CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 11.) 

 Mohamed Abdalla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Request for Judicial Intervention by

Chief Justice David F. Levi.” In this document, Plaintiff asks that the Chief Judge correct what

he perceives is an error in his case. Specifically, Plaintiff states that the undersigned “states that

the ‘Scheduling Order’ dated February 7, 2006 would not apply to plaintiff’s request for

production of documents because the magistrate stated that said request was untimely.” Plaintiff 1

then asks that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that during his deposition, he was

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 112 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 3
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

promised that he would receive a copy of the documents sought and has waited approximately

five months for them. (Request at 1.) The Court has reviewed the court record, however, and

finds that there is no record of a Motion to Compel production of documents filed by Plaintiff. 

Further, there appears to be no Order in which Plaintiff was informed by the undersigned that his

request for production of documents was untimely. Further, Plaintiff’s request for judicial

notice of facts that took place at a deposition is improper. 

The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir. 1993). Judicial notice th

may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1

(N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9 Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d th

1236, 1239 (4 Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6 Cir. th th

1980). Conversations or events taking place at a deposition is not the type of fact that is capable

of judicial notice. Thus, any request for judicial notice is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to modify a date concerning treatment given by

a Defendant dismissed from this action is DENIED. This Court recommended that Defendant

Camiso be dismissed from the action for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of the Complaint

upon him. Thus, modifying a date in the Complaint with respect to when Plaintiff received

treatment by Defendant Camiso would not change the Court’s recommendation. As such,

Plaintiff’s attempts to amend would be futile. While leave to amend should be freely given if

justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be futile or subject

to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9 Cir. 1991). th

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to amend is DENIED. 

Plaintiff is further informed that he may not seek review of his case from the chief judge. 

Should Plaintiff be dissatisfied with Orders of this Court he may seek reconsideration under the

Local Rules, file Objections when appropriate or file an appeal. There is no mechanism for

Plaintiff to seek intervention by the Chief Judge of a case which has not been assigned to him. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s request for clarification of the Order transferring this case from one

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 112 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

district court judge to another is DENIED. The Order itself provides sufficient explanation. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Request to Amend is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial intervention is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 112 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3