Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06336/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06336-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

ALTON E. FITZGERALD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06336-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Alton E. Fitzgerald (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132

(Americans with Disabilities Act), and 29 U.S.C. § 794

(Rehabilitation Act). The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302.

On September 19, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Case 1:04-cv-06336-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. “A judicially 1

noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is

either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial

court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources

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

Court will consider plaintiff’s exhibits in conjunction with his objections,

and judicial notice of the exhibits is not a prerequisite to such

consideration. The contents of plaintiff’s documentary exhibits are

inappropriate subject matter for judicial notice. With respect to the

unsigned proposed stipulation in Plata submitted by plaintiff, although the

court may take judicial notice of court records, Valerio v. Boise Cascade

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981), it may not take judicial notice of

“‘the truth of the facts therein . . . .’” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250

F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Southern Cross Overseas Agencies v. Wah

Kwong Shipping Group, Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426-27 (3rd Cir. 1999)).

2

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, along with a request for

judicial notice. On October 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of 1

errata to his objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 19,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed April 18, 2005, against defendants Adams and

Woodford on plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendants

Adams and Woodford is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted;

4. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment, ADA, and RA claims against

defendants Bartlett, M. Gonzales, P.C. Gonzales, Lais, and Coreno

Case 1:04-cv-06336-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; and

5. Defendants Bartlett, M. Gonzales, P.C. Gonzales, Lais,

and Coreno are DISMISSED from this action based on plaintiff’s

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted

against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06336-AWI-LJO Document 20 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 3