(PC) Newsome v. Loterzstain

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHELDON RAY NEWSOME, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 v. ECF No. 151 M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al., 15 Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a request that asks the court to take judicial notice a medical note from the Bakersfield Neuroscience & Spine Institute, two letters from the Prison Law Office, and several articles from certain websites, including Wikipedia. ECF No. 151. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s request, arguing that the documents are subject to reasonable dispute. ECF No. 152.

The documents are not properly subject to judicial notice, and so I will deny plaintiff’s motion.

A court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute,” either “because it is generally known within the court’s territorial jurisdiction,” or because it “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The materials provided by plaintiff fail to satisfy this standard. See Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“As a general matter, courts are hesitant to take notice of information found on third party websites and routinely deny requests for judicial notice, particularly when the credibility of the | site’s source information is called into question by another party.”); Fregia v. Miranda, No. 2:19- | cv-2196-JAM-KJN (P), 2021 WL 1388387, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021) (declining to take || judicial notice of the plaintiff's medical records).

4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's request for judicial notice, ECF | No. 151, is denied.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 11, 2023 Q——— 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE