(PC) Bland v. Rodriguez ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLAND, Case No. 1:20-cv-00478-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. (ECF No. 70) 14 ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 70). It is 19 not entirely clear what Plaintiff is asking the Court to take judicial notice of. Plaintiff mentions 20 that he had conversations with defense counsel in which he told defense counsel that he submitted 21 three grievance forms, but none were acknowledged. Plaintiff also alleges that this happened 22 numerous times and was a common occurrence at Kern Valley State Prison. 23 Plaintiff then goes on to include unrelated allegations. He states that he failed to do his 24 initial disclosures because he did not understand what he had to do. He also does not know what 25 written discovery is, and he has not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the “forms 26 and questions” sent by Defendants because he is currently in Ad-Seg due to safety/enemy 27 concerns, and does not have access to any of his legal papers. Plaintiff also states that he wrote to 28 defense counsel and asked defense counsel to take his deposition via telephone. een nee enn EIEIO EI IEE EE 1 Finally, Plaintiff goes on to argue that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) does 2 | not apply to him because he is sovereign and that the PLRA is unconstitutional. 3 Plaintiff asks the Court to excuse the exhaustion requirement. 4 “The Court may judicially notice a fact that 1s not subject to reasonable dispute because it: 5 | (1) 1s generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and 6 | readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. 7 | Evid. 201(b). 8 Plaintiff's request for judicial notice will be denied and the Court will not excuse the 9 | exhaustion requirement at this time. None of the facts alleged by Plaintiff are generally known or 10 | can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 11 |} questioned. 12 The Court notes that Defendants have not yet filed a motion for summary judgment based 13 | on the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. If they do, 14 | Plaintiff will have an opportunity to oppose that motion, and will be allowed to present both 15 || evidence and legal arguments as to why the exhaustion requirement should be excused.! 16 As to the unrelated allegations, Plaintiff does not ask for relief based on these allegations 17 | and it is not clear why Plaintiff included them. Therefore, the Court will not address these 18 | allegations. 19 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for judicial 20 || notice is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _ September 23, 2021 [see hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 ' As to Plaintiffs arguments that he is sovereign and that statutes do not apply to him, the Court notes that “Courts across the country ‘have uniformly rejected arguments’ based on the sovereign citizen ideology as frivolous, 26 irrational, or unintelligible. United States v. Staten, No. 1:10-cr-179, 2012 WL 2389871, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2012) (collecting cases). The Ninth Circuit has rejected arguments premised on the ideology as ‘utterly meritless.’ See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986).” Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 27 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016) (finding Plaintiff's complaint, which was based on sovereign citizen ideology, to be frivolous). 28 Ty