Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00101-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. L. DeAZEVEDO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND OVERRULING 

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS 

AND EXHIBIT LISTS

(Docs. 91 and 92)

Plaintiff Timothy Howard, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 20, 2011. This case is currently 

set for jury trial on April 21, 2015, and the Pretrial Order was filed on March 13, 2015. On March 

20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice of prison records documenting his 

unsuccessful attempts to communicate with his inmate witnesses and an objection to Defendants’ 

witness and exhibit lists grounded in their failure to serve initial disclosures.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. The Court may only take judicial notice of

undisputed matters, but this issue is moot in any event. Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cnty. of 

Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012). On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order 

granting Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of his incarcerated witnesses and it specifically 

stated, “[A]ny argument that Plaintiff should be penalized for not having more current or specific 

information is untenable. Inmates’ ability to correspond with one another is restricted by prison 

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 93 Filed 03/23/15 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

28

2

regulations, and Plaintiff attested that he repeatedly sought permission to communicate with his 

inmate witnesses, without success.” (Doc. 89, Order, 2:19-22.)

With respect to Plaintiff’s objection, this case was not subject to initial disclosures. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). The misunderstanding may have arisen from the fact that Plaintiff is 

proceeding with multiple cases in this district and initial disclosures were ordered in two of those 

cases.

1

 However, initial disclosures were not ordered in this case and rulings in Plaintiff’s other 

civil cases provide no basis for an objection in this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is HEREBY DENIED and Plaintiff’s 

objection to Defendants’ witness and exhibit lists is OVERRULED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of document #45 in Howard v. Wang, 1:10-cv-01783-DLB (PC), and document #28 

in Howard v. Gonzales, 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB (PC). 

Case 1:11-cv-00101-AWI-SKO Document 93 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 2