Summary
noting “a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record”
Summary of this case from Rogozinski v. Reddit, Inc.Opinion
1:22-cv-00637-BAM (PC)
04-19-2023
QUINNELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CASTILLO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF No. 23-1) ORDER LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF STATE CRIMINAL MATTER (ECF No. 20) ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Quinnell Johnson (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Castillo (“Defendant”) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On January 18, 2023, the Court granted Defendant's motion for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of Plaintiff's pending criminal matter in the Kings County Superior Court, People v. Quinnell Johnson, Case No. 21CM-2856. (ECF No. 20.) Pursuant to that order, Defendant filed a status report on April 18, 2023, indicating that the criminal action was resolved on March 1, 2023. (ECF No. 23.)
Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Criminal Complaint in People v. Quinnell Johnson, Kings County Superior Court case number 21CM-2856, dated May 27, 2021, for battery upon a non-confined person; and (2) Kings County Superior Court minute order dated March 1, 2023 outlining the details of Plaintiff's plea agreement and resulting sentence in 21CM-2856. (ECF No. 23-1, Exhs. 1-2.)
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits the Court to take judicial notice at any time. 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 who accuracy reasonably cannot be questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). Courts may take judicial notice of facts related to the case before it. Amphibious Partners, LLC v. Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 1361-62 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court was entitled to take judicial notice of its memorandum of order and judgment from previous case involving same parties). This Court may judicially notice the records and filing of other court proceedings. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, including papers filed with the court and the records of state agencies and administrative bodies. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); Lundquist v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 394 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1242-42 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (stating that court may take judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies).
Because the Court may take judicial notice of public records, including duly recorded documents under Rule 201(b)(2), Defendant's request to take judicial notice of the abovementioned documents is granted.
Pursuant to these documents, Plaintiff's criminal action in 21CM-2856 has now resolved. Accordingly, the stay of this action is lifted and Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's request for judicial notice, (ECF No. 23-1), is GRANTED;
2. The stay of this action, (ECF No. 20), is LIFTED;
3. Defendant Castillo shall file a response to Plaintiff's complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.