Flarity v. Roberts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JOE PATRICK FLARITY, a marital CASE NO. 3:20-cv-06247 11 community, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE CO., Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice. Dkt.

25. The Court has considered the motion and the remaining file. Defendant did not file a response. Oral argument is unnecessary.

Plaintiff appears to seek judicial notice that the Court will follow stare decisis, that the jury has the right to review mixed questions of law and fact, and that he is entitle to “the same consideration as a BAR certified lawyer. . . .” Dkt. 25 at 2–3.

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b): “The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”

5 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because he does not move for judicial notice on the types of facts considered by the rule. The Court, however, is bound by applicable rules and stare decisis. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1180 (9th Cir. 2001).

8 In addition, the Court notes that this motion is meritless and frivolous. As a pro se party, Plaintiff is subject to the rules of civil procedure. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). If Plaintiff continues to file motions that are meritless or frivolous, then he may be subject to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11.

12 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 25) IS DENIED.

14 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to last known address of the party appearing pro se.

16 Dated this 26th day of March, 2021.

A

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge