Tosic v. Blakemore-Tomason

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00619
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 PREDRAG TOSIC, CASE NO. C23-0619JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 HEATHER BLAKEMORE- 13 TOMASON, 14 Defendant. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Predrag Tosic’s motion for clarification regarding 16 “minute orders and some other procedural matters.” (Mot. (Dkt. # 13).) The court has 17 reviewed Mr. Tosic’s request and, for the reasons stated herein, DENIES it. 18 In his motion, Mr. Tosic ostensibly responds to the court’s April 28, 2023 Minute 19 Order ordering Mr. Tosic to cure certain filing deficiencies. (See 4/28/23 Min. Order 20 (Dkt. # 3) (ordering Mr. Tosic to file a copy of the operative complaint).) Mr. Tosic asks 21 22 1 the court to clarify which of his state court pleadings is the operative complaint and poses 2 a litany of other procedural and legal questions regarding his case. (See generally Mot.)

3 The court, however, cannot give legal advice to pro se parties, except to 4 recommend they seek the advice of a trained attorney. The United States Supreme Court 5 has concluded that “[d]istrict judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to 6 pro se litigants,” because requiring federal district judges to explain the details of federal 7 procedure or act as a pro se litigant’s counsel “would undermine district judges’ role as 8 impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Jacobsen

9 v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365-66 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that advising pro se litigants 10 would make the court “a player in the adversary process rather than remaining its 11 referee”).1 12 The court therefore DENIES Mr. Tosic’s motion for clarification (Dkt. # 13) and 13 recommends that Mr. Tosic seek the advice of a trained attorney and review this

14 District’s Pro Se Guide. See W.D. Wash., Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit in 15 Federal Court (rev’d April 2023), 16 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ProSeGuidetoFilingYourLawsuitinFede 17 ralCourt.pdf. 18

19 20 1 See also, e.g., United States ex rel. Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Wash., No. C16-0052JLR, 2020 WL 949940 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2020) (denying pro se party’s 21 request for legal advice); Ellenwood v. Dep’t of Corr. Mental/Medical Health, No. C08-5197FDB, 2008 WL 2323926, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2008) (same); Hopper v. Wigen, 22 No. C05-5662FDB, 2006 WL 166360, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2006) (same). 1 Dated this 10th day of May, 2023. 2 A 3 4 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22