Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00094-12/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 Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 10, 2015, August 14, 2015, and September 11, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed 

requests for judicial notice of several documents, including correspondence to defense counsel, inmate 

grievances, inmate request for interview forms, and request for correspondence forms. (ECF Nos. 61, 

63, 70.) 

Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of any facts 

which may be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and (d). However, a Court may only take judicial notice of facts 

contained in a state agency’s records where the facts are not subject to a reasonable dispute.” Brown 

v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 931 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005). 

ROBERT BISHOP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00094-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[ECF Nos. 

Case 1:11-cv-00094-LJO-SAB Document 73 Filed 09/16/15 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

First, Plaintiff does not provide any basis other than the attachment of documents to the motion 

to support a finding of judicial notice, and the Court cannot determine the relevancy of the documents. 

Second, the Court will not take judicial notice of documents in a vacuum and these documents are not 

the type of adjudicative facts that are judicially noticeable. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00094-LJO-SAB Document 73 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2