Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01621-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Martin
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent
Jeanne Woodford
Respondent

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

GEORGE MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1621 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[Doc. 4]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 21, 2005, Petitioner filed, along with the instant petition for writ of habeas

corpus, a request for the Court to take judicial notice of facts and evidence pursuant to Rule 201

of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

“A judicially 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). “A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with

the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). 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). 

In his request for judicial notice, Petitioner requests that the Court take judicial notice of

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/07/06 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 The Court notes that in an order issued simultaneously herewith, the Court has directed Petitioner to 1

amend the petition as it is not clear what claim(s) Petitioner is attempting to raise. 

2

various aspects of the United States Constitution, the fact that Petitioner is a disabled prisoner,

that a mail log exists demonstrating that certain mail was sent to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and various actions of prison officials in handling and processing

his mail.

Petitioner’s request must be denied. Initially, the Court does not take judicial notice of

facts in a vacuum, rather Petitioner must demonstrate how the request for judicial notice relates

to the claims raised in the instant petition. Further, the facts that Petitioner requests for judicial 1

notice are not facts that are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2