Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01908/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01908-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01908 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[ECF No. 51]

Plaintiff Oscar Marshall, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 16, 2011. 

On September 29, 2015, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that 

recommended Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within thirty (30) days. On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections. On November 3, 2015, 

Defendants filed a reply. On November 19, 2015, the District Court adopted the Findings and 

Recommendations in part. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted on Plaintiff’s 

Fourth Amendment claim, but denied on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. Accordingly, the case is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice. Plaintiff takes issue with 

the Findings and Recommendations and argues that the Findings and Recommendations must be 

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 52 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

2

reversed to allow further proceedings to occur. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. First, the time for 

filing objections to the Findings and Recommendations has passed, and indeed, Plaintiff did file 

objections. Second, the Findings and Recommendations have already been addressed by the District 

Court along with Plaintiff’s objections. Third, the case is not terminated and is in fact proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01908-LJO-DLB Document 52 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2