(PC) Mitchell v. Gonzales

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00062
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, No. 1:23-cv-00062-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. (ECF No. 39) 14 C. GONZALES, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff John Edward Mitchell is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, filed January 29, 2024. 20 (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of Title 15 of the California 21 Code of Regulations sections 3084.9 and 3085. (Id.) 22 Per Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact 23 if it “is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the court's 24 territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 25 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 26 Rule 201, however, deals only with adjudicative facts. See Lindland v. TuSimple, Inc., 27 Case No. 21-CV-417 JLS (MDD), 2022 WL 687148, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2022) (citation 28 omitted). “Adjudicative facts are simply facts of the particular case,” whereas legislative facts are 1 | those related to “legal reasoning and lawmaking.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a), Notes of Advisory 2 || Committee on Proposed Rules Subdivision (a). “It is unnecessary to request that the court 3 judicially notice published cases from California and federal courts as legal precedent; the court 4 | routinely considers such legal authorities in doing its legal analysis without a party requesting that 5 | they be judicially noticed.” Lindland, 2022 WL 687148, at *3 (quoting Lucero v. Wong, No. C 6 10-1339 SI PR, 2011 WL 5834963, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)); see Benton v. Cory, 474 F. 7 | App’x 622, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We grant [appellant]’s request for judicial notice of court 8 | filings in other proceedings, but deny as unnecessary his request for judicial notice of legal 9 | authorities.” (citing Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011))); Owino v. 10 | CoreCivic, Inc., No. 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS), 2018 WL 2193644, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) 11 | (‘Itis well established that [ ]Jcourts may consider legal reasoning and conclusions of other 12 || federal courts without resort to Rule 201.” (citing Derum v. Saks & Co., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 13 1224 (S.D. Cal. 2015))); Nguyen v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, No. 15-CV-0063-CAB-BLM, 14 | 2015 WL 12672149, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) (“[I]t is inappropriate to request that the 15 | Court take judicial notice of legal authority, as judicial notice is reserved for adjudicative fact[s] 16 | only.”) (quoting Stiller v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 3:09-cv-2473-GPC-BGS, 2013 WL 17 | 4401371, at *1 S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013)); Lathan v. Ducart, No. 16-16551, 2017 WL 3976705, 18 | at *1 (9th Cir. June 16, 2017) (denying as unnecessary request for judicial notice as to “statutes, 19 | regulations, or published opinions”). Thus, judicial notice of California Code of Regulations is 20 | unwarranted, and Plaintiffs request 1s denied. That said, Plaintiff is advised that the Court will 21 | consider any and all applicable legal authority. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _ January 30, 2024 ;

35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28