Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00221/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00221-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

BENNY RAY BROWN, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

 v. )

 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-hc-00221-OWW-TAG-HC 

 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

(Doc. 17 )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

HEARING (Doc. 14)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE (Docs. 12, 13,

15, 16, and 18)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 31, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to continue (Doc. 17), which the

Court construes as a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation, dated April 25, 2005, which recommended dismissal of the instant

petition. (Doc. 11). 

Petitioner has also filed five motions for judicial notice (Docs. 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18), and

one request for a hearing. (Doc. 14). The motions for judicial notice refer to documents and

information related to Petitioner’s pending criminal prosecution in the Superior Court for the County

of Kern (“Superior Court”) in its Case No. BF 108480A.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 6
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

DISCUSSION

A. Motions for Judicial Notice.

On April 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion for Judicial Notice in which Petitioner seeks

judicial notice of “the state continuos [sic] conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Petitioner.” (Doc.

13, p. 1). Attached to the motion are the following: (1) an untitled motion filed in the Court of

Appeal, State of California, Fifth Appellate District (“5th DCA”) on an unknown date with an

unknown case number, requesting injunctive relief against the Superior Court due to the malicious

prosecution of Petitioner; (2) a motion filed in the Superior Court in Case No. BF 108480A,

Petitioner’s pending criminal prosecution, seeking to replace Petitioner’s court-appointed counsel

with another attorney (“Marsden” motion); (3) an ex parte motion for transcript of prior Marsden

hearing held April 13, 2005, filed in the Superior Court in Case No. BF 108480A; (4) a motion to

withdraw Petitioner’s guilty plea, filed by Petitioner’s current attorney, Michael Gardina, filed March

18, 2005 in Case No. BF 108480A. (Doc. 13).

On April 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for a Hearing. (Doc. 14). 

In that motion, Petitioner alleges that the Superior Court in Case No. BF 108480A, state judges,

prosecutors, and defense attorneys are conspiring to deny Petitioner’s repeated Marsden motions

seeking to replace Petitioner’s current counsel of record. It is not clear from the motion precisely

what type of hearing Petitioner is requesting or what issues Petitioner would raise if such a hearing

were ordered.

On May 2, 2005, Petitioner filed a second Motion for Judicial Notice, alleging a conspiracy

among judges and lawyers in Kern County to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights. (Doc.

15). Attached to the motion are the following: (1) Petitioner’s motion to substitute counsel, dated

March 21, 2005, and filed in Superior Court in Case No. BF 108480A; (2) an undated Marsden

motion filed in Superior Court by Petitioner in Case No. BF 108480A; (3) the request for judicial

notice filed in this case by Petitioner on April 4, 2005 (Doc. 7), and denied as moot on April 25,

2005 (Doc. 11); (4) and a letter dated April 6, 2005, from the 5th DCA to Petitioner indicating that

the addendum to his Extraordinary Writ was returned unfiled because the writ had already been

denied. (Doc. 15). 

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 6
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

On May 12, 2005, Petitioner filed another motion for judicial notice of the fact that his

attorney is refusing to communicate with him and that the “court is allowing it.” (Doc. 16). 

Attached to the motion are the following documents: (1) the April 28, 2005 denial of Petitioner’s

petition for a writ of mandate in the 5th DCA; (2) an ex parte motion filed in the Superior Court in

Case No. BF 108480A seeking to have Petitioner’s counsel file a suppression motion; (3) an almost

illegible copy of a police report for Petitioner, dated November 28, 2004, indicating that when the

police officer made contact with Petitioner, the latter discarded a quantity of rock cocaine, and in the

subsequent search of Petitioner’s person, a glass narcotics smoking pipe was discovered; (4) a

November 45, 2004, letter from Bakersfield City Attorney Virginia Gennaro, to Petitioner,

responding to Petitioner’s public records request; (5) a November 29, 2004 Bakersfield Police

Department report concerning Petitioner’s arrest for possession of suspected cocaine and drug

paraphernalia on the previous day. (Doc. 16). 

On June 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Judicial Notice, in which

Petitioner asks that the “court take judicial notice and see the unfair treatment in judicial process, and

how the sign on attorney of record(s) and sign off attorney in their judicial misconduct to conspire to

illegally process via racial profiling and selective prosecution to petitioner continuously with no

regard to my life nor my son life.” (Doc. 18, p. 1). Attached to the motion are the following

documents: (1) a petition for writ of habeas corpus, signed June 1, 2005, and directed to the 5th DCA,

alleging inadequate representation in his current prosecution, racial profiling, and denial of his

Marsden motion; (2) a brief in support of the habeas petition, with attached exhibits which are copies

of documents previously filed with this Court and related to his pending prosecution in Case No. BF

104840A. 

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). The above-referenced

motions for judicial notice, however, ask this Court to judicially notice facts such as “unfair

treatment”, “judicial misconduct”, false statements by attorneys, and conspiracies among the judges

and attorneys in the Superior Court to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights (Docs. 12, 13,

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 6
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

15, and 18), which are “facts” appropriate for adjudication and which lie well beyond the scope of

judicial notice. On this ground, Petitioner’s motions must be denied.

Judicial notice may also be taken of court records. See Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887

F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th

Cir. 1987); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980); 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.). 

However, as a general rule “a court may not take judicial notice of proceedings or records in another

cause so as to supply, without formal introduction of evidence, facts essential to support a contention

in a cause then before it.” M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491

(9th Cir.1983). Judicial 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); see also General Elec. Capital

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

Here, the vast majority of documents which Petitioner has appended to his motions for

judicial notice are documents that Petitioner himself has authored and which repeat the same

arguments and unsubstantiated allegations regarding a conspiracy among judges and attorneys, the

trial court’s unjustifiable refusal to grant his Marsden motion, and ineffective assistance by

Petitioner’s trial counsel. These are arguments and allegations, not facts. As such, they are not the

proper subject of judicial notice and must be denied. 

Moreover, all of Petitioner’s motions for judicial notice are moot. The instant petition

purports to raise constitutional claims relating to Petitioner’s pending prosecution in Case No. BF

104840A. (Doc. 1). The Court has already recommended to the District Court that the petition be

dismissed not only because it raises claims that are unexhausted in state court, but because it raises

claims that arise out of a pending criminal prosecution which is ongoing. (Doc. 11). Thus, to the

extent that Petitioner’s motions for judicial notice seek judicial notice of court proceedings in Case

No. BF 104840A, they must be denied as moot.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 06/13/05 Page 4 of 6
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

B. Motion for a Hearing.

Petitioner’s motion for a hearing on these issues likewise must be denied at this time. Rule

8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that where a petition is not dismissed at a

previous stage in the proceeding, the judge, after the answer and transcripts and record of the state

court proceedings are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine whether an

evidentiary hearing is required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a

factual dispute. An evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the petition that: 

(1) the allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of

fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9th

Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Sain 372

U.S. 293, 309 (1963)(overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715

(1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id. 

Here, because the Court has previously issued a recommendation that the instant petition be

dismissed as premature and containing unexhausted claims, no hearing is required since no

allegations in the Petition, if established, would entitle Petitioner to relief at the present time. 

However, in the future, the Court will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing should it

find one necessary.

C. Motion to Continue.

Based upon his limited access to law library resources, Petitioner requests an extension of

time of sixty days within which to file his objections. (Doc. 17). In considering Petitioner’s motion

to continue, it bears emphasis that, as noted above, Petitioner has filed no less than six separate legal

documents in this case, totaling several hundreds of pages, after the Magistrate Judge issued the

Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the petition and during the period for filing objections. 

(Docs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18). From these voluminous filings, it appears, therefore, that

Petitioner’s access to the law library is not so limited or constrained that an additional sixty days is

required to file his objections. Accordingly, the Court will grant a thirty day extension for Petitioner

to file his objections. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 06/13/05 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motions for Judicial Notice (Docs. 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18), are DENIED as

MOOT;

2. Petitioner’s Motion for Hearing (Doc. 14), is DENIED; and

3. Petitioner’s Motion to Continue (Doc. 17), is GRANTED in part. Petitioner is granted

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file objections to the Findings and

Recommendation of April 25, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00221-OWW -TAG Document 21 Filed 06/13/05 Page 6 of 6