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.

Saif'ullah v. Haviland

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


October 5, 2010

KHALIFAH E.D. SAIF'ULLAH, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN HAVILAND, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 2008 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings finding him unsuitable for parole. He also claims that two prison disciplinary convictions, upon which the Board relied to find him unsuitable for release on parole, violated his federal constitutional rights.

On August 24, 2010, petitioner filed a request that this court take judicial notice of a report issued in July 2010 by the California Office of the Inspector General on the subject of the processes employed by the Board for preparing psychological evaluations used in parole suitability hearings. The report was prepared at the request of the California Senate Rules Committee because of the Committee's concerns regarding factual errors in psychological evaluations and about certain psychologists whose risk assessment conclusions were elevated compared to conclusions made in previous evaluations. Petitioner asserts that this report is relevant to his claim that the Board's 2008 decision was biased because the hearing panel relied on his most recent psychological evaluation and not on prior evaluations in finding him unsuitable for release parole. Respondent has not filed an opposition to petitioner's motion.

The report attached to petitioner's motion appears to be an appropriate subject of judicial notice and has some relevance to petitioner's claims before this court. See United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (Judicial notice is appropriate for public records and "reports of administrative bodies"); White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010) (appropriate to take judicial notice of state bar records reflecting disciplinary proceedings).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for judicial notice is granted.

20101005

© 1992-2010 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.