Barno v. Padilla
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-03886
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Barno v. Padilla, Judge Illston granted defendants’ extension request and denied Barno’s request for judicial notice.
The defendants received more time to file their dispositive motion. Barno received deadlines to oppose that motion, but his request for judicial notice was denied.
What happened
In Barno v. Padilla, defendants asked for more time to file a motion that could resolve the case, and Barno asked the court to officially recognize facts from about twenty other cases.
The court granted defendants’ request and set new deadlines: April 30, 2021, for defendants’ motion; June 11, 2021, for Barno’s response; and June 25, 2021, for any reply. The court denied Barno’s request for judicial notice because the materials were disputed court filings and were submitted before defendants filed their motion.
Judge Susan Illston entered the order on February 1, 2021. The order addressed scheduling and evidence, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Barno v. Padilla · No. 3:20-cv-03886
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
Defendants filed an ex parte request—meaning a request made without the usual participation of the opposing party—for an extension of the deadline to file a dispositive motion. A dispositive motion is a motion that could resolve some or all of the case. Barno separately asked the court to take judicial notice of about twenty court cases concerning alleged retaliation against or unfair treatment of prisoners.
Extension request
The court granted defendants’ request for an extension. It set the following briefing schedule:
- Defendants had to file and serve their dispositive motion by April 30, 2021. - Barno had to file and serve his opposition by June 11, 2021. - Defendants had to file and serve any reply by June 25, 2021.
Request for judicial notice
The court denied Barno’s request for judicial notice. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts without formal evidence when those facts are generally known or can be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The court explained that factual findings and disputed assertions in filings from other cases generally cannot be judicially noticed to prove facts in the current case. The court also stated that it was too early for Barno to submit evidence because defendants had not yet filed their dispositive motion.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ request for an extension and denied Barno’s request for judicial notice. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.