Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06100/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06100-0/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. BARKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

GAIL LEWIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 03 6100 AWI LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S

MOTIONS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

[Docs. # 36, 37]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 28, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. By order of the Court dated August 5, 2003,

the action was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California.

On February 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court take judicial notice of a

Findings and Recommendation issued in another case from the Eastern District of California:

Coleman v. Board of Prison Terms, Case No. CIV-S-96-0783 LKK PAN P. On March 23, 2005,

Petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court take judicial notice of an Order and a Findings and

Recommendation issued in another case from the Eastern District of California: Irons v. Carey, Case

Case 1:03-cv-06100-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 07/14/05 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

1

See Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600-01 (9th Cir.1999) (Although only Supreme Court law is binding

on the states, Ninth Circuit precedent remains relevant persuasive authority in determining whether a state court decision is

objectively unreasonable.); see also Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3(a) and (b): 

(a) Not Precedent: Unpublished dispositions and orders of this Court are not binding precedent, except where

relevant under the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

(b) Citation: Unpublished dispositions and order[s] of this Court may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit,

except in the following circumstances. 

(i) They may be cited to this Court or to or by any other court in this circuit when relevant under the

doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 

(ii) They may be cited to this Court or by any other courts in this circuit for factual purposes, such as to

show double jeopardy, sanctionable conduct, notice, entitlement to attorneys' fees, or the existence of a

related case. 

(iii) They may be cited to this Court in a request to publish a disposition or order made pursuant to Circuit

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

No. CIV-S-04-00220 LKK GGH P.

DISCUSSION

This Court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the

federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel.

Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244 (9th Cir.1992); see also MGIC

Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118,

119 (9th cir. 1980). Although a court may take judicial notice of orders filed by other courts, a court

may not take judicial notice of the truth of another court's findings so as to supply the "facts essential

to support a contention in a cause then before it." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th

Cir.2003), citing M/V Am Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th

Cir.1983). Therefore, judicial notice of the orders' genuineness and existence is proper, but the

findings in the decisions cannot be utilized to prove a fact in the instant case. See id., at 1114, n.5

("Factual findings in one case ordinarily are not admissible for their truth in another case through

judicial notice.").

Accordingly, good cause having been presented to the Court and good cause appearing

therefor, Petitioner’s request for judicial notice of the existence of the court findings in the various 

cases submitted by Petitioner upon review of the merits of Petitioner's claims to the extent the cases

are appropriate.1,2 

Case 1:03-cv-06100-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 07/14/05 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

Rule 36-4, or in a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, in order to demonstrate the existence

of a conflict among opinions, dispositions, or orders.

2District Court decisions are not controlling but can be considered as persuasive authority. Starbuck v. City &

County of San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450, 457 n. 13 (9th Cir.1977) ("The doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district

court judge to follow the decision of another."); see also In re Van Wagoner Funds, Inc., 2004 WL 2623972, *4, fn. 5

(N.D.Cal.2004).

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner's motions for judicial notice are hereby GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06100-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 3