(PC) Kile v. Doerer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF KILE, No. 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. (ECF No. 18) 14 J. DOERER,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, filed February 28, 19 2025. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the deliberate delay 20 in delivery of mail by Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff references a letter signed by D. Datray, 21 Supervisory Correctional System Specialist at the United States Penitentiary, Atwater, which 22 states that there was a delay in receipt of some of the mail from the Court. (ECF No. 14.) 23 “The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: 24 (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and 25 readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 26 201(b). Thus, “[a] court may take judicial notice of the existence of matters of public record, such 27 as a prior order or decision, but not the truth of the facts cited therein.” Marsh v. San Diego Cnty., 28 1 | 432 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1043 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2006), citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 2 | 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 Plaintiffs request for judicial notice shall be denied. Although Plaintiff asserts, and 4 | submits a letter in support thereof, that there has been a delay in receipt of mail from the Courts, 5 | Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is not necessary. In issuing the Court’s February 25, 2025, 6 | order, vacating the prior Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal for failure to 7 | exhaust, the Court considered Plaintiff's contention that there has been a delay in receipt of mail 8 | and noted that there are currently no pending deadlines as Plaintiff's complaint will be screened 9 | in due course. (ECF No. 15.) To the extent Plaintiff may need additional time to comply with 10 | future court orders, he may file a request at the appropriate time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request 11 | for judicial notice of the delay in receipt of his mail is DENIED as unnecessary. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 14 || Dated: _ March 4, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28