(PC) Thomas v. Chenalo

1 Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALBERT EUGENE THOMAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01185-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED REQUEST FOR LEGAL 13 v. ADVICE FLORES, et al., (Doc. No. 41) 15 Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME AUGUST 25, 2023, DEADLINE 20 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).

24 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.

27 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.

4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED to the extent Plaintiff seeks legal advice 6 from the Court.

7 2. The Court sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to file a response to 8 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment if he so chooses.

9 3. Plaintiff shall deliver his response, if any, to Defendants’ motion for summary 10 judgment to correctional officials for mailing no later than August 25, 2023. | Dated: __July 21,2023 Mle Wh fareh Zack 13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | | Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc):