(PC) Ioane v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL S. IOANE, 1:19-cv-01585-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 vs. (ECF No. 5.) 14 STEVEN MERLAK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Michael S. Ioane (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 22 action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the 23 Complaint commencing this action on November 6, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) 24 On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice which is now before 25 the court. (ECF No. 5.) 26 II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 27 Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs judicial notice. The content of 28 records and reports of administrative bodies are proper subjects for judicial notice under Rule 1 201(d). Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir.1953). A court 2 may also take judicial notice of the contents of public records. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 3 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “[c]ourts may only take judicial notice of adjudicative 4 facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). “Facts are indisputable, and thus subject to judicial 6 notice, only if they either ‘generally known’ . . . or capable of accurate and ready determination 7 by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned[.]” Id. at 909. 8 Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of two court records: (1) the Magistrate 9 Judge’s findings and recommendations in case no. 19-cv-0879-JLT; and (2) Limone v. U.S., 10 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 19239 (1st Cir. Mass. 2009), “whereas the outcome of the case was an 11 award of 1 million dollars per year of imprisonment for being falsely imprisoned.” (ECF No. 5.) 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 The document and case referred to by Plaintiff can be judicially noticed as public records. 14 U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003.) However, the court cannot discern what 15 relevance this document and case have to the issues raised by Plaintiff in the present case. 16 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice shall be denied. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for judicial 19 notice, filed on November 18, 2019, is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: May 6, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28