Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00759-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHWARZENEGGER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 759 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Doc. 6.) 

 Brian Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Requesting Court Take Judicial

Notice” in which he requests that the Court take judicial notice of various documents attached to

the Motion. The documents concern Plaintiff’s administrative grievances and appear to support

Plaintiff’s contention that he has “exhausted” his administrative remedies. 

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 (9th Cir. 1993). Judicial notice

Case 1:06-cv-00759-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 07/07/06 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

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 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d

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

1980). 

In this case, the type of documentation attached to the Motion are not the type of

documents that a Court would ordinarily take judicial notice of. The documents support

Plaintiff’s contention that he has exhausted his administrative remedies or that he is trying to

exhaust his administrative remedies. As such, they are evidence in support of that contention and

as exhaustion is not yet an issue in this case, they are unnecessary at this stage in the proceedings. 

Accordingly, the Motion Requesting Judicial Notice is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00759-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2