From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neely v. Dir., Cal. Dep't of Corr.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2022
2:08-cv-1416 WBS CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022)

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.


Summaries of

Neely v. Dir., Cal. Dep't of Corr.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 18, 2022
2:08-cv-1416 WBS CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Neely v. Dir., Cal. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM STEWART NEELY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 18, 2022

Citations

2:08-cv-1416 WBS CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022)