(PC) Puckett v. Kelso

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00054
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION FOR COURT 13 v. ASSISTANCE

14 BARAONA, T. CAMPBELL, (Doc. No. 118) HERNANDEZ and WHITE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a one-page pro se pleading titled “Summary 19 Adjudication by Way of Agreed Statement of the Court Per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . 20 Question of Law Let the Record Reflect . . .” which the Clerk docketed as a “Motion for 21 Summary Judgment.” (Doc. No. 118). The pleading consists of a rambling and unintelligible 22 litany of disjointed words and phrases. Plaintiff is advised that any motions requesting relief 23 must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order[,]” and “state the relief sought[,]” 24 which Plaintiff’s pleading fails to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Plaintiff’s motion consists only 25 of words strings, many of which are illegible. To the extent discernable, Plaintiff requests the 26 Court to “assist and provide investigations.” Thus, the Court does not construe the pleading as a 27 motion for summary judgment but for the Court to assist Plaintiff with his case.1

28 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. eee EI OI EEE IE SIE RO

1 At the outset, the Court is not permitted to render legal advice to any litigant, including 2 | pro se litigants. As acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court, requiring a federal judge to 3 | explain federal procedure or act as counsel for a pro se litigant “would undermine district judges’ role 4 | as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 5 | 790 F.2d 1362, 1365-66 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that providing legal advice to a pro se litigant 6 | “would entail the district court's [sic] becoming a player in the adversary process rather than 7 || remaining its referee.”). Plaintiff is free to pursue discovery to investigate his own claims, but 8 | this Court has no authority to conduct an investigation on Plaintiffs behalf. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 1. The Clerk of Cour shall correct the docket entry to reflect Plaintiff's pro se pleading 11 filed on January 8, 2025 (Doc. No. 118) is construed as a “motion for court 12 assistance.” 13 2. Plaintiff's construed motion for court assistance (Doc. No. 118) is DENIED. 14 | Dated: _ January 13, 2025 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 28 | 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id.