Greening v. Arnold

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 KRISTOPHER K. GREENING, Case No. 2:25-cv-00595-BJR-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. ORDER 8 KARIN ARNOLD, 9 Respondent. 10 11 Petitioner proceeds pro se in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas action. 12 Currently before the Court are petitioner’s motion to “waive the magistrate report and 13 recommendation” (Dkt. 12), petitioner’s “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13) and 14 petitioner’s “motion requesting judicial notice” (Dkt. 14). 15 Petitioner moves to “waive the magistrate report and recommendation” (Dkt. 12) 16 citing to Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461 (1974). In Wingo the Court held that the 17 Federal Magistrates Act did not authorize a magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary 18 hearing. Id. But the 1976 amendments to the Federal Magistrates Act authorize 19 appointment of magistrate judges to conduct evidentiary hearings and submit proposed 20 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 22 part of the 1976 amendments to the Federal Magistrates Act in response to this Court's 23 decision in Wingo v. Wedding.” See U.S. v. Radditz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 24 1 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to “waive the magistrate report and 2 recommendation” (Dkt. 12) is denied. 3 Petitioner has also filed a “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13). Petitioner requests 4 that the Court “issue an order directing the respondent to show cause.” Id. He further 5 requests the Court order an evidentiary hearing and “dismiss the matter of Greening 6 with prejudice.” Id. 7 The Court has already directed respondent to file an answer addressing the 8 claims in the petition. Dkt. 16. Furthermore, once this matter is fully briefed the Court will 9 address the merits of the petition including whether an evidentiary hearing is 10 appropriate and whether petitioner is entitled to the ultimate relief he requests in the 11 petition. Accordingly, petitioner’s “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13) is denied as 12 premature and unnecessary. 13 Petitioner has also filed a “motion requesting judicial notice” (Dkt. 14). Pursuant 14 to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a federal court may take judicial notice of adjudicative 15 facts. Fed. R. Evid. 201(a),(d). “The Court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject 16 to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial 17 jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 18 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court may not take 19 judicial notice of a matter that is subject to reasonable dispute. Lee v. City of Los 20 Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001). “The party requesting judicial notice bears 21 the burden of persuading the court that the particular fact is not reasonably subject to 22 dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to a source 23 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Rodriguez v. Unknown-Named 24 1 disciplinary Hearings Agent, No. 209CV02195FCDKJNPS, 2010 WL 1407772, at *2 2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Rodriguez v. 3 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 6 asserts he has filed in a state court action. Dkt. 14. But petitioner does not attach the 7 documents to his motion, nor does he explain how these documents are relevant to his 8 claims or what particular facts are the subject of his request for judicial notice – that is, 9 what facts he is arguing are not subject to reasonable dispute. The Court also notes that 10 the respondent is required to submit the relevant portions of the state court record in 11 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 15 recommendation” (Dkt. 12), petitioner’s “motion to show cause” (Dkt. 13) and 16 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 18 respondent. 19 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025. 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 23 24