United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
se litigant Isaacky Gavrilovich Sharipoff
(“plaintiff”) moves for judicial notice of
several documents attached as exhibits to his request for
judicial notice (ECF 7). For the reasons set forth below,
plaintiff's request is DENIED.
filed a complaint against defendants on September 12, 2018
(ECF no. 1). The plaintiff alleged he was in custody in the
Marion County jail during which the individually named
defendants caused physical and mental harm and discriminated
against him because of his perceived nationality.
Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed what the Court
construes as a request for judicial notice on October 18,
2018 (ECF no. 7). Included in the plaintiff's request for
judicial notice are lengthy descriptions of allegations of
injuries he attributes to the defendants, references and
citations to religious texts and statutes, summaries of
medical bills, and legal argument. Id. Plaintiff
attached several exhibits to his request for judicial notice.
Exhibit A appears to be a collection of medical chart notes
and billing statements; Exhibit B appears to be a medical
billing statement; Exhibit C appears to be a medical billing
statement; Exhibit D is titled, “Marion County
Sheriff's Office Institutions Division Hearing
Report;” Exhibit E is titled, “Marion County
Sheriff's Office Institutions Division Hearing
Report;” Exhibit F is titled, “Marion County Jail
Health Services;” Exhibit G is titled, “Marion
County Jail Health Services” and includes an affidavit
signed by plaintiff; Exhibits H through M are a series of
color photographs; Exhibit N includes an affidavit, what
appears to be additional jail records and several
photographs; Exhibit O is an affidavit and a document titled,
“Tort Claim;” Exhibit P is titled,
“Notice;” there is no document marked as Exhibit
Q; Exhibit R is titled, “Second Notice of
Default;” and Exhibit S is an affidavit. Id.
properly supported request by a party, a federal court may
take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Fed.R.Evid.
201(a), (d). Facts subject to judicial notice are those
which are 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). A court may not take judicial
notice of a matter that is in dispute. Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir.2001). The party
requesting judicial notice bears the burden of persuading the
court that the particular fact is not reasonably subject to
dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate
determination by resort to a source “whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.” In re Tyrone F.
Conner Corp., Inc., 140 B.R. 771, 781 (E.D.Cal.1992).
records of a state agency are the proper subject of judicial
notice, a district court “may not take judicial notice
of documents filed with an administrative agency to prove the
truth of the contents of the documents.” Benavides
v. City of Arvin, No. 12-cv-0405, 2012 WL 1910259, at 3
(E.D.Cal. May 25, 2012) (citing, inter alia, M/V Am.
Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483,
1492 (9th Cir.1983)); Klein v. Freedom Strategic
Partners, 595 F.Supp. 2d 1152, 1157
(D.Nev.2009) (“When a court takes judicial
notice of a public record, ‘it may do so not for the
truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of
the [record], which is not subject to reasonable dispute over
its authenticity.' ” (quoting Lee v. City of
L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir.2001))).
Benavides, for example, the defendants asked the
court to take judicial notice of, among other things, the
contents of a police report. 2012 WL 1910259, at 2.
The Benavides court declined to take judicial notice
of the contents of the police report, because the contents
were not the proper subject of judicial notice, and because
“the allegedly indisputable facts contained in the
police report ... are subject to hearsay objections, and do
not rise to the ‘high degree of indisputability'
required for judicial notice for their truth.”
Id. at *3 (citation omitted). For these reasons, the
Court in Benevides denied Defendant's request
for judicial notice.
the plaintiff asks this court to take judicial notice of
photographs, the contents of affidavits, public records, and
handwritten notes made on several exhibits. These documents
attempt to elaborate on the claims the plaintiff makes in his
complaint. They do not rise to the ‘high degree of
indisputability” required for judicial notice. The
photographs and affidavits are subject to appropriate hearsay
objections. Plaintiff also includes content that is mere
argument, or simply not relevant for any purpose connected to
plaintiff's claims. The exhibits that include medical
billing statements are also subject to hearsay objections and
are not appropriate for judicial notice.
while the exhibits associated with Marion County jail might
likely be characterized as public records, for the reasons
discussed above, the content of those records are
inappropriate for judicial notice in that these records are
also subject to appropriate hearsay objections. Moreover,
several of these jail records include hand-written commentary
that raise significant questions as to the authenticity of
reasons provided above, the plaintiff's request for
judicial notice is DENIED.