(PC) Thomas v. Chenalo

Opinion

Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the ALBERT EUGENE THOMAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01185-ADA-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED REQUEST FOR LEGAL v. ADVICE FLORES, et al., (Doc. No. 41) Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME AUGUST 25, 2023, DEADLINE Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Clarification.” (Doc. No. 41 “Motion”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks clarification as to whether he is to respond to Defendants’ purportedly unsigned and undated motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2). The Court is required to strike unsigned filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); L.R. 131(b). L.R. 131(b). The Court did not strike Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because it is signed and dated. (Doc. No. 40-1 at 13). The Court does not advise litigants on how to litigate a case. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (holding that requiring the courts to advise pro se litigants would undermine the court’s role as an impartial decisionmaker). However, considering Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court points Plaintiff to the Rand' warning provided by Defendants in their moving papers. (Doc. No. 40-2). The Court sua sponte will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment if he so chooses. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED to the extent Plaintiff seeks legal advice from the Court. 2. The Court sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment if he so chooses. 3. Plaintiff shall deliver his response, if any, to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to correctional officials for mailing no later than August 25, 2023. Dated: __July 21,2023 Mle Wh fareh Zack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

| | Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc):