Larry Sermeno v. Julia Ogonowski, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY SERMENO, No. 2:25-CV-02032-DJC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JULIA OGONOWSKI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court are Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 3-1, motion to expedite, ECF No. 3-2, motion 19 for discovery, ECF No. 3-3, and request for judicial notice, ECF No. 3-4. 20 In Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Plaintiff requests the Court or “[o]rder Defendants 21 to re-review Plaintiff’s June 23, 2025 government tort claim;” (2) “require Defendants to issue a 22 written decision;” (3) declaratory relief; and (4) “additional equitable relief the Court deems just.” 23 ECF No. 3-1, pgs. 5-6. The relief Plaintiff seeks is duplicative of the Plaintiff requested in the 24 motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied on November 3, 2025. See ECF No. 11. In 25 the motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to re-review Plaintiff’s 26 government tort claim and in the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff requested that the 27 Court issue declaratory relief that Plaintiff was entitled to such reconsideration. To the extent that 28 Plaintiff seeks damages in the motion to compel, such relief is not proper for a motion to compel. 1 Given the District Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relieve, the undersigned will 2 deny the motion to compel as moot. Related, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, ECF No. 3-3, 3 requests limited discovery for the purposes of the motion for preliminary injunction, and upon the 4 denial of the motion for preliminary injunction, the motion for discovery is also moot. Therefore, 5 the undersigned will deny the motion for discovery as moot. 6 Plaintiff’s motion to expedite is premature as Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been 7 served and therefore, the undersigned will deny such motion. 8 In Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) 9 Plaintiff’s prior state government tort claim; (2) Plaintiff’s Eastern District Case Sermeno v. 10 Grover et. al.; (3) Plaintiff’s state habeas petition filed in Butte County Superior Court on July 3, 11 2025; and (4) Plaintiff’s direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, 12 pending since November 2024. See ECF No. 3-4, pg. 2. The Court may take judicial notice 13 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of matters of public record. See U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of 14 Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, this Court may take judicial notice of state court 15 records, see Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of America, 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964), as well 16 as its own records, see Chandler v. U.S., 378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967). 17 As to Plaintiff’s prior government tort claim, this claim underlies Plaintiff’s 18 complaint and the Court does not at this time find Plaintiff provided proof that this is a matter of 19 public record. Thus, the undersigned will deny the request for judicial notice as to Plaintiff’s prior 20 government tort claim. 21 As to Plaintiff’s Eastern District Case Sermeno v. Grover et. al., the Court takes 22 judicial notice of Case No. 2:25-cv-01902-DAD-DMC, as this Court’s own record. As to 23 Plaintiff’s state habeas petition, the Court does not find such filing in the Superior Court of 24 California, County of Butte, case list. While Plaintiff’s name is reflected in a number of state 25 habeas petitions filed at that Court, those date back to 2016. Thus, the undersigned will decline to 26 take judicial notice of such filing. As to Plaintiff’s appeal to the California Court of Appeal, 27 Third Appellate District, of the 38 records produced as a result of searching Plaintiff’s name, it 28 appears Plaintiff is referring to case number C102419, filed in the trial court on October 24, 2024, 1 || and the notice of appeal filed with the Third Appellate District on November 8, 2024. On 2 || December 10, 2025, the state court affirmed Plaintiff's judgment. Thus, the Court takes judicial 3 || notice of Plaintiffs state appeal case number C102419, and that such appeal was denied 4 || December 10, 2025. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 3-1, and motion for discovery, ECF 7 No. 3-3, are DENIED AS MOOT; 8 2. Plaintiff's motion to expedite, ECF No. 3-2, is DENIED WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE; and 10 3. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice, ECF No. 3-4, is GRANTED IN 11 PART and DENIED IN PART as described herein. 12 13 | Dated: February 17, 2026 Ss..c0_, M4 DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28