Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cerniglia v. Mayberg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 4, 2009

STEVEN ROBERT CERNIGLIA, PETITIONER,
v.
STEVEN MAYBERG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Dixon United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[Doc. 31]

Petitioner is a State prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a request for judicial notice of, "attached Newly discovered/Obtained evidence." (Court Doc. 31). Petitioner attached to that request:

Exhibit A, consisting of: a complaint form filed by Petitioner, dated August 4, 2008, along with a letters from the California Department of Mental Health to Petitioner, Stephanie Schaefer (Petitioner's sister), and Daniel Wagoner, a patient's rights advocate;

Exhibit B, consisting of: a complaint form filed by Riley Noonkester on August 8, 2008, along with letters from Mr. Wagoner and the California Department of Mental Health;

Exhibit C, consisting of: a complaint form filed by Ruben Seja, along with a letter from Mr. Wagoner;

Exhibit D, consisting of: several complaint forms filed by a patient identified as R.E. Grassini and/or Randee Grassini, along with a letter from Mr. Wagoner, and the Classification Services Unit;

Exhibit E, consisting of a letter from Darrell Richardson dated August 31, 2008, and a letter from the California Department of Mental Health to Mr. Richardson;

Exhibit F, consisting of a complaint form from Daniel Cebada dated November 6, 2007; and

Exhibit G, consisting of a complaint form from Aaron Wheeler, dated December 29, 2008.

While these documents may be submitted as evidence for the Court to review, the Court does not find that they are appropriate for judicial notice. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) ("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").

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for judicial notice be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090804

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.