Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00114/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00114-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Respondent
Tarza R. Nelson
Petitioner

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 A motion to dismiss is currently due on or before March 28, 2008 or an answer is due on or before April 1

29, 2008. (Court Doc. 5.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TARZA R. NELSON,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00114 OWW SMS HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF NINTH

CIRCUIT RULING

[Doc. 8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 23, 2008. On

January 29, 2008, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a responsive pleading.1

(Court Doc. 5.) 

On February 21, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court to take judicial

notice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recent decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d

536 (Jan. 2, 2008). In his motion, Petitioner compares his case both legally and factually to the

circumstances present in Hayward. (See Motion.) 

DISCUSSION

“A court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records

Case 1:08-cv-00114-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/05/08 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 Petitioner is advised that if and when the Court reviews the merits of the petition, Petitioner may argue the 2

applicability of holding in Hayward. 

2

of an inferior court in other cases.” United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9 Cir.1980). th

Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b)(2) permits judicial notice of a fact that is “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.”

The Court cannot take judicial notice of factual circumstances in a vacuum. Rather, the

facts must be placed in context. As the Court has yet to review the merits of the instant petition,

the Court cannot determinate the applicability of the opinion in Hayward. In addition, as noted 2

above, the Court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is subject to reasonable dispute. Fed.

R. Evid. § 201(b). The application of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion to the circumstances of

Petitioner’s case, is not “generally known” or “capable of accurate and ready determination.” Id. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for judicial notice is

GRANTED in part. The Court hereby TAKES judicial notice of the existence of the Ninth

Circuit’s recent opinion in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (Jan. 2, 2008).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00114-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 2