Saddozai v. Atchley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 20-cv-07534 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR v. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL

14 M.B. ATCHLEY, et al.,

15 Defendants. (Docket No. 110)

17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant S. Tomlinson at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) for 20 a First Amendment free speech violation. Dkt. No. 38. After settlement proceedings were 21 unsuccessful, this matter was referred to the Federal Pro Se Program, to find counsel if 22 possible to represent Plaintiff for trial. Dkt. No. 99. This matter is currently stayed 23 pending the referral. 24 On June 5, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel joinder of the 25 CDCR as a party to this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2) and 21. 26 Dkt. No. 109. Plaintiff was directed to pursue his new claims against the CDCR in a 27 separate action and be subject to the related filing fees. Id. at 3. 1 that since his transfer to Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), he has been without his 2 property. Dkt. No. 110. Plaintiff alleges that his property has been “stolen and kept in the 3 possession by state officials at San Quentin (“SQRC”), without justification as of the 4 present current date to punish Plaintiff out of retaliation to pending litigation and other 5 advocacy issues.” Id. at 3. He alleges other acts by state officials at SQRC and at PBSP. 6 Id. at 4-5. He repeats his request to add the CDCR as a defendant to this action based on 7 the “new evidence” which he has “presented herein for the court to take judicial notice” 8 and to “provide judicial intervention.” Id. at 7. 9 Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits a court to notice an adjudicative fact if it is 10 “not subject to reasonable dispute.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, 899 F.3d 988, 999 11 (9th Cir. 2018). “A fact is not subject to reasonable dispute if it is generally known, or can 12 be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 13 questioned.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED because it cannot be said that his 15 allegations against officials at SQRC and PBSP are “generally known” or “can be 16 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 17 questioned.” Id. Rather, the request is yet another attempt to draw the CDCR into this 18 action, based on claims that are unrelated to the underlying First Amendment claim against 19 Defendant Tomlinson. 20 To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order 21 denying his motion to compel joinder of the CDCR, Dkt. No. 109, his request is DENIED. 22 As he has already been advised, no pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under the 23 Northern District of California’s Local Rule 7-9 may be brought without leave of court. 24 See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). He has failed to do so. 25 Plaintiff must first exhaust administrative remedies through the prison’s grievance 26 system to obtain the relief he seeks for the recent loss of his property. If he is unsatisfied 1 || SQRC or PBSP and be subject to the related filing fees. 2 This order terminates Docket No. 110. 4 || Dated: _June 26, 2025 _ fcunfhccnan 5 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 © 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 95 Order Denying Motion for RIN PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\07534Saddozai_deny.rjn 26 27