Opinion
2:08-cv-1416 WBS CKD P
11-18-2022
WILLIAM STEWART NEELY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner has filed a “motion for discovery” and “request for judicial notice.” This case was closed on February 28, 2012, and petitioner's motion for relief from judgment is under consideration by the court. At this point, the motion for discovery is premature. The request for judicial notice is not appropriate as none of the “facts” identified by petitioner are 1) generally known within the court's jurisdiction or 2) can accurately and readily be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be denied. See Fed R. Evid. 201.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for discovery (ECF No. 61) is denied as premature and without prejudice to refiling if this case is re-opened.
2. Petitioner's motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 62) is denied.
3. Petitioner shall refrain from filing any further motions until the court renders a decision as to petitioner's motion for relief from judgment.