Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
9thCirRequestForJudicialNotice111909

9thCirRequestForJudicialNotice111909

Ratings: (0)|Views: 60 |Likes:
Published by Leslie Dutton

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Leslie Dutton on Nov 21, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
134568
9
10121314
15
161718192021
2223
25
R i'â t% 1 ù V Eï D
M
u
9
.
)Lè&t,F%%7,%i)l-l'
N0v 2 2 2228
RICHARD 1. FINE, In Pro Per
Prisoner ID # 1824367 L'IQTED
.. jxyj u
c/o Men's Cenlal Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012UMTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE MNTH CGCUIT
RICIIARD 1. FINE, Case No. 09-56073
Appellant and Petitioner,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914 JFW (CW)
VS.
REQLTEST FOR JUDICIAI,
NOTICE OF ENI'IRE MPELLATE
SFIERIFF OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT'S SELF-RECUSMS INCOUNTY, et a1, THE t&STURGEON'' APPEALS
Appellees and Respondents
Appellant respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
attached letter dated November 9, 2009, nnnotmcing the self-recusal of a11
justices of the Second Appellate Diskict, California Court of Appeal, with
respect to the current appeal underway in the matter of Sturgeon v. Countv of
Los Angeles, LA Cotmty Superior Court Case No. 8C351786.
The Court is also requested to take notice of the Second Appellate
Dislict's prior transfer of the case on its ftrst appeal, as evidenced by the
attached copy of its letter dated May 10, 2007.
Case: 09-56073 11/20/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7138870
 
I
1 The relevance of these documents is that it contradicts the false inference
2
of Appellees LA Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe's answering brief that
3
4 Judge Yaffe was not obligated to recuse himself in the instant c%e.
5
These doolments constitute facts not reasonably subject to dispute. 'Fhe
6
7 did not come to Appellant's attention until a few days ago.
8
LEGALSTANDARD
9
1c A court may properly take notice of ''matters of public record'' ptlrsuant to
11Federal Rule of EWdence section 201 to the extent they are not subject to
12
reasonable dispute. f ee v. C# of L s Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Ck.314 2001). Such records may Zclude adminislative records, reports and procedures.
15
See, e.g., Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., 209 F.2d
16
17 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953)., Coinstar. Inc. v. CoinBank Automated Sjx, Inc., 998
18F
.
Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
1920
21 CONCLUSION
22
The allegations in the instant appeal and tmderlying Petition for Writ of
23
24 Habe% Copus are inexrtricably intertwined with the issues raised in the attached
25
documents. Accordingly, this Court is entitled to take judicial notice of these
26
27 documents, and Appellant therefore specifically requests that this Court take
28judidal notice of the docllments identified above.
-
2-
Case: 09-56073 11/20/2009 Page: 2 of 6 DktEntry: 7138870
 
Dated this / f day of November, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
2
3 BY:
4 RICHARD 1. FINE,ln Pro Per
89101213
1415
1618192021
22
242526
27
28
Case: 09-56073 11/20/2009 Page: 3 of 6 DktEntry: 7138870

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->