(PC) Newsome v. Loterzstain ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHELDON RAY NEWSOME, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. ECF No. 151 14 M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a request that asks the court to take judicial notice a medical note from 17 the Bakersfield Neuroscience & Spine Institute, two letters from the Prison Law Office, and 18 several articles from certain websites, including Wikipedia. ECF No. 151. Defendant opposes 19 plaintiff’s request, arguing that the documents are subject to reasonable dispute. ECF No. 152. 20 The documents are not properly subject to judicial notice, and so I will deny plaintiff’s motion. 21 A court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute,” either 22 “because it is generally known within the court’s territorial jurisdiction,” or because it “can be 23 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 24 questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The materials provided by plaintiff fail to satisfy this 25 standard. See Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2015) 26 (“As a general matter, courts are hesitant to take notice of information found on third party 27 websites and routinely deny requests for judicial notice, particularly when the credibility of the 28 1 | site’s source information is called into question by another party.”); Fregia v. Miranda, No. 2:19- 2 | cv-2196-JAM-KJN (P), 2021 WL 1388387, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021) (declining to take 3 || judicial notice of the plaintiff's medical records). 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's request for judicial notice, ECF 5 | No. 151, is denied. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 11, 2023 Q——— 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28