Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02076/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02076-5/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

GERRY WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. BITER,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-02076-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Doc. 14.)

I. BACKGROUND

Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

December 29, 2014. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on April 

9, 2015, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 12.) 

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint and a Request for Judicial 

Notice. (Docs. 13, 14.)

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is now before the court.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

AA 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). AA court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party 

Case 1:14-cv-02076-DAD-EPG Document 15 Filed 05/18/15 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

and supplied with the necessary information.@ Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The court may take 

judicial notice of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. 

Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). AJudicial notice 

is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties= evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a 

substitute for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.@ York v. American 

Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted); see General 

Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of cases “cited by this court as to 

Valley Fever and Arsenic tainted drinking water, and toxic environmental hazardous conditions 

of confinement.” (Doc. 14 at 2:10-12.) Plaintiff lists the cites for 2 cases from the 9th Circuit, 

1 case from the 7th Circuit, 1 case from the 3rd Circuit, 1 case from the U.S. Supreme Court, 

and 1 case from the 5th Circuit. Plaintiff has not attached copies of the case decisions to which 

he cites. Plaintiff requests the court to “take Judicial Notice that each of the cases listed above 

is similar to Plaintiff’s case.” (Doc. 14 at 3:21-22.)

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to take judicial notice of these cases. 

Plaintiff’s request would require the court to review all of the listed cases and perform an 

analysis as to the similarities of each case to Plaintiff’s case. The result of such analysis is not 

an existing fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute, and therefore is not subject to judicial 

notice. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request must be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial 

Notice, filed on May 11, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02076-DAD-EPG Document 15 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 2