(PC) Stevens v. Smith

Opinion

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00741-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. ) FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

S. SMITH, et al., ) (ECF No. 2) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on June 17, 2022, along with a motion for the Court to take judicial notice of self-authenticating documents. (ECF No. 2.) “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of court records. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court may take judicial notice of matter of public record, including records and reports of administrative agencies. United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff does not provide any basis other than the attachment of inmate grievance forms, and the Court cannot take judicial notice of the truth of the facts and matters asserted in the grievance forms. The Court will not take judicial notice of documents in a vacuum. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for judicial notice is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee g Dated: _July 20, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE