Kristopher K. Greening v. Karin Arnold

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA KRISTOPHER K. GREENING, Case No. 2:25-cv-00595-BJR-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER KARIN ARNOLD, Respondent.

Petitioner proceeds pro se in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas action.

Currently before the Court are petitioner’s motion to “waive the magistrate report and recommendation” (Dkt. 12), petitioner’s “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13) and petitioner’s “motion requesting judicial notice” (Dkt. 14).

Petitioner moves to “waive the magistrate report and recommendation” (Dkt. 12) citing to Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461 (1974). In Wingo the Court held that the Federal Magistrates Act did not authorize a magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Id. But the 1976 amendments to the Federal Magistrates Act authorize appointment of magistrate judges to conduct evidentiary hearings and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition in federal habeas cases. See 28 21 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B). In fact, “Congress enacted the present version of § 636(b) as part of the 1976 amendments to the Federal Magistrates Act in response to this Court's decision in Wingo v. Wedding.” See U.S. v. Radditz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).

1 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to “waive the magistrate report and recommendation” (Dkt. 12) is denied.

3 Petitioner has also filed a “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13). Petitioner requests that the Court “issue an order directing the respondent to show cause.” Id. He further requests the Court order an evidentiary hearing and “dismiss the matter of Greening with prejudice.” Id. 7 The Court has already directed respondent to file an answer addressing the claims in the petition. Dkt. 16. Furthermore, once this matter is fully briefed the Court will address the merits of the petition including whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate and whether petitioner is entitled to the ultimate relief he requests in the petition. Accordingly, petitioner’s “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13) is denied as premature and unnecessary.

13 Petitioner has also filed a “motion requesting judicial notice” (Dkt. 14). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a federal court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Fed. R. Evid. 201(a),(d). “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 reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court may not take judicial notice of a matter that is subject to reasonable 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.” Rodriguez v. Unknown-Named disciplinary Hearings Agent, No. 209CV02195FCDKJNPS, 2010 WL 1407772, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Rodriguez v. Unknown-Named Disciplinary Hearings, No. CIVS092195FCDKJNPS, 2010 WL 4 1407789 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

5 Here, petitioner asks the Court to take judicial notice of various documents he asserts he has filed in a state court action. Dkt. 14. But petitioner does not attach the documents to his motion, nor does he explain how these documents are relevant to his claims or what particular facts are the subject of his request for judicial notice – that is, what facts he is arguing are not subject to reasonable dispute. The Court also notes that the respondent is required to submit the relevant portions of the state court record in this matter along with the response to the petition.

12 Accordingly, plaintiff’s “motion requesting judicial notice” (Dkt. 14) is denied.

13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to “waive the magistrate report and recommendation” (Dkt. 12), petitioner’s “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13) and petitioner’s “motion requesting judicial notice” (Dkt. 14) are denied.

17 The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to petitioner and counsel for respondent.

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.

21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge