Opinion
1:19-cv-01585-GSA-PC
05-06-2020
MICHAEL S. IOANE, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN MERLAK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(ECF No. 5.)
I. BACKGROUND
Michael S. Ioane ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 6, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)
On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice which is now before the court. (ECF No. 5.)
II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs judicial notice. The content of records and reports of administrative bodies are proper subjects for judicial notice under Rule 201(d). Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir.1953). A court may also take judicial notice of the contents of public records. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, "[c]ourts may only take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute." United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). "Facts are indisputable, and thus subject to judicial notice, only if they either 'generally known' . . . or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned[.]" Id. at 909.
Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of two court records: (1) the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in case no. 19-cv-0879-JLT; and (2) Limone v. U.S., 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 19239 (1st Cir. Mass. 2009), "whereas the outcome of the case was an award of 1 million dollars per year of imprisonment for being falsely imprisoned." (ECF No. 5.)
III. DISCUSSION
The document and case referred to by Plaintiff can be judicially noticed as public records. U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003.) However, the court cannot discern what relevance this document and case have to the issues raised by Plaintiff in the present case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for judicial notice shall be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for judicial notice, filed on November 18, 2019, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6 , 2020
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE