Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00542/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00542-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Diaz
Respondent
Emil Joseph Ekdahl
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The petition was filed on April 16, 2013, challenging a prison disciplinary hearing and the 

sanctions that resulted, contending that they would affect Petitioner’s chances for being released on 

parole. (Doc. 1). On June 3, 2013, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that 

since Petitioner was serving a life sentence, the loss of credits would not affect his parole date. (Doc. 

14). On July 26, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 

19). Pursuant to court rules, the matter was referred to the United States District Judge assigned to the 

case, where the case remained pending the District Judge’s decision whether to adopt the Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. 

During this year-long period, Petitioner filed numerous motions, including, on July 10, 2014, 

the instant request for judicial notice in which Petitioner requests that the Court consider excerpts from 

EMIL JOSEPH EKDAHL,

 Petitioner,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, Warden,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00542-AWI-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Doc. 32)

Case 1:13-cv-00542-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

his most recent parole hearing as proof that the disciplinary hearing affected Petitioner’s chances for

parole. (Doc. 32). As a result of Petitioner’s motion, which contained only selective excerpts from 

the parole hearing, the Magistrate Judge, on September 3, 2014, ordered Respondent to file the entire 

transcript of the parole hearing within thirty days. (Doc. 33). To date, Respondent has not complied 

with the Court’s order to produce the transcript. On September 30, 2014, the District Judge adopted 

in part and refused to adopt in part the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 33). On November 20, 

2014, based on the District Judge’s ruling, the Magistrate Judge ordered Respondent to file a response 

to the petition. (Doc. 35). 

On January 20, 2015, Respondent filed the Answer along with various exhibits. (Doc. 39). 

The Answer repeats the argument Respondent first raised in the motion to dismiss, i.e., that the Court 

lacks habeas jurisdiction because even if the disciplinary hearing were reversed and expunged, it 

would not necessarily accelerate the date on which Petitioner would be released on parole. As 

mentioned, Respondent has never filed a complete transcript of that hearing, choosing instead to rely

upon the sliver of transcripts appended to the instant request for judicial notice. Accordingly, the Court 

will grant Petitioner’s request for judicial notice.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for judicial 

notice (Doc. 32) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00542-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2