Watson v. Schwarzenegger et al
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/1/10 DENYING 5 Motions without prejudice to refiling in Case No. CIV S-10-0123 MCE KJM. (Dillon, M)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY WATSON et al., Plaintiffs, vs. A. SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Defendants. / Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding pro se. On February 12, 2010, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action as duplicative of an action plaintiffs previously filed in this court. See Case No. CIV S-10-0123 MCE KJM P.1 On the same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of counsel, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. In light of the pending findings and recommendations, the court will deny plaintiffs' motions without prejudice to their refiling in Case No. CIV S-10-0123 MCE KJM P. ///// ///// ORDER No. CIV S-10-0293 GEB DAD P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DAD:9 wats0293.31
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' February 12, 2010 motions (Doc. No. 5) are denied without prejudice to refiling in Case No. CIV S-10-0123 MCE KJM P. DATED: March 1, 2010.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
