IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

CARMEL LINOT, #68236-018 PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-363-HTW-LGI

WILLIAM K. MARSHALL, III and WARDEN R.D. KEYES RESPONDENTS ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Carmel Linot (“Petitioner”), an inmate of the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi. He brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

, challenging the calculation of his sentence. On July 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion [10] for Emergency Summary Judgment, and 11 days later Petitioner filed a Motion [12] asking the Court to hold this case in abeyance for 30 days. Petitioner states that the parties are working to resolve the issues he presents in this habeas case. In light of his Motion [12] to hold the case in abeyance, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion [10] for Emergency Summary Judgment. The Court will grant Petitioner’s request to hold this case in abeyance, but Petitioner is required to file, no later than October 23, a written response stating his intention to either continue with this case or to voluntarily dismiss this case. Petitioner also filed a Motion [13] for Clarification of Law wherein he essentially seeks legal advice or an advisory opinion from the Court. Neither is permitted. See United States Dep’t of Defense v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emp., No. 6:25-cv-119,

, at *10 (W.D. Tex. July 23, 2025) (“Federal courts have uniformly declined to issue advisory opinions for more than two centuries.”); Carling v. Sacks Counseling, LLC, No. 4:24cv-1413,

, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2024) (“[I]t is not the court’s responsibility to give Plaintiff or any pro se litigant legal advice”), report and recommendation adopted,

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2025). Petitioner’s Motion [13] will be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion [10] for Emergency Summary Judgment and Motion [13] for Clarification of Law are denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion [12] to hold this case in abeyance

for at least 30-days is granted. Petitioner is directed, no later than October 23, 2025, to file a written response stating his intention to either continue with this case or to voluntarily dismiss this case. Plaintiff is warned that if he does not comply with this Order, this case will be dismissed. The Court warns Petitioner that failure to advise this Court of a change of address or a failure to comply with any Order of this Court will result in the dismissal of this case. THIS the 10th day of October, 2025. s/HENRY T. WINGATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2