Dixon v. Wesbrook, et al.

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING 14 Motion for Continuance, Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/1/2012. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENISA DIXON,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01290 AWI JLT
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE

v.
BPD OFFICERS WESBROOK, et al.,
(Doc. 14)

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

On November 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Request

19

Judicial Notices.” (Doc. 14) Inexplicably, this motion was not acted on by the Court at that time.

20

Review of the motion appears to reveal that Plaintiff is not truly seeking to have the Court

21

take judicial notice of any facts.1 Instead, it appears to be an analysis by Plaintiff of her belief

22

that Defendants’ defenses lack merit.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

In any event, as the Court advised Plaintiff in its order dated March 19, 2012 (Doc. 30),
a request for judicial notice is not appropriate at this time.

1

1

Because Plaintiff has no motion pending that would require the introduction of evidence

2

that would authorize the Court to take judicial notice of any fact, the motion for judicial notice is

3

DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated:

May 1, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2