IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

RAYMOND C. KATCHATAG,

Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:19-cv-00172-RRB LAURA BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Raymond C. Katchatag, a self-represented prisoner, has filed a Motion for Clarification of Second Amended Complaint at Docket 19. Mr. Katchatag requests that the Court send him a sample claim and “break this down for me so I can better understand as these are from the 2nd Amended Complaint.”1 He also requests an extension of time to file his Second Amended Complaint at Docket 20. The Court already has issued its order and guidance regarding the amendment of Mr. Katchatag’s complaint.2 District courts cannot issue advisory opinions.3 Therefore, the Court cannot respond to Mr. Katchatag’s inquiry.

1 Docket 19 at 1–2. 2 See Dockets 7, 10, 15, 20, 24, 27, 30, 33, 42. 3 See Princeton Univ. v. Schmid,

(1982) (citing Hall v. Beals,

(1969) “live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract questions of law.”); see also U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc.,

(1993) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk,

(1975)) (“‘The exercise of judicial power under Art. III of the Constitution depends on The Motion for Clarification of Second Amended Complaint at Docket 19 is DENIED.

The Motion for an Extension of Time at Docket 20 is GRANTED. Mr.Katchatag’s Second Amended Complaint is due by April 27, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 5th day of March, 2020.

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline Ralph R. Beistline Senior United States District Judge

the existence of a case or controversy,’ and ‘a federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.’”). 3:19-cv-00172-RRB, Katchatag v. Brooks, et al.