Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00144/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00144-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrylyn McCain
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERRYLYN MCCAIN,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cr-00144-TLN

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Defendant Terrylyn McCain (“Defendant”) filed a Request for Judicial Notice (ECF 

No. 119) on February 6, 2014. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may 

judicially take notice of adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because such 

facts are reasonably known within the jurisdiction or can be accurately and readily determined 

from sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.

Defendant’s filing requests the Court take judicial notice of a litany of alleged facts that 

she recites. Specifically, Defendant has alleged that “Petitioner is an informant for the Internal 

Revenue Service and has filed an IRS Claim in the United States District Court, in Washington 

D.C. . . . under the False Claims Act.” (ECF No. 119 at 1.) Defendant also cites to case no. 1-3-

cv-01418-BAH and further asserts that:

Petitioner, the Relator, conducted my own investigations in 

furtherance of a False Claims Act qui tam action and found that 

Defendants pursued and continue to pursue foreclosure actions 

Case 2:12-cr-00144-TLN Document 120 Filed 02/14/14 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

using false and fabricated documents, particularly mortgage 

assignments. The Defendants used robo-signers who signed 

thousands of documents each week with no review nor any 

knowledge of their contents and created forged mortgage 

assignments using fraudulent titles in order to proceed with 

foreclosures.

(ECF No. 119 at 3.) There is nothing in Defendant’s request that the Court may appropriately 

take judicial notice of pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Except for the portions of the 

request that recite facts from the docket, the alleged facts are not adjudicative facts nor are they

generally known within the jurisdiction or able to be accurately or readily determined from 

sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. Moreover, Defendant fails to show how any of the 

allegations within her request are relevant to the case that she has cited to or the litigation at hand. 

See Fed. R. Evid. 401. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is 

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2014

Case 2:12-cr-00144-TLN Document 120 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 2