Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01024-9/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 Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff attaches a copy of an investigation report dated March 3, 2001, a 

criminal investigation involving unknown individuals. Plaintiff’s request must be denied.

Under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may take judicial notice of a fact 

not subject to reasonable dispute, either because the fact is generally known within the territorial 

jurisdiction of the trial court or because the fact is capable of accurate and ready determination from 

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

This action is proceeding against Defendant Wildey for excessive force and against Defendant 

Marshal for failure to protect. The Court cannot determine and Plaintiff does not present the relevancy 

for which to take judicial notice of the investigative report attached to Plaintiff’s motion. See, e.g., 

BENNY FORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. WILDEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[ECF No. 47]

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 51 Filed 05/19/14 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

Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113, 1120 fn. 4 (9th Cir. 2008) (deny request for judicial notice based 

on lack of relevancy); Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 548 fn. 13 (9th Cir. 1998) (same). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01024-SAB Document 51 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 2