1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MICHAEL WHITFIELD, Case No. 3:21-cv-00443-MMD-VCF

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CARLA BALDWIN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Michael Whitfield filed this action on October 13, 2021, against U.S. 12 Magistrate Judges Carla Baldwin and William Cobb.1 (ECF No. 1.) The Court issued a 13 notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) unless proof of service was 14 filed by March 9, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) In light of Whitfield’s pro se status, the Court sua 15 sponte extended the deadline to April 7, 2022. (ECF No. 7 (the “extension order”).) The 16 extension order included explanation of proper service in Nevada pursuant to Rule 4 of 17 the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1-2.) 18 On April 6, 2022, Whitfield filed a motion for clarification “re service of process” 19 (ECF No. 8), explaining his attempts to serve Defendants and asking the Court to clarify 20 how to serve Defendants. The Court acknowledges that Whitfield has attempted in good 21 faith to serve Defendants. However, the Court’s role is not to provide legal advice, even 22 to a litigant who is proceeding pro se. See Pliler v. Ford,

(2004); see 23 also Bias v. Moynihan,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the 24 power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”).2 In its extension order, the 25 Court informed Whitfield of the rules for service; it will not, however, advise Whitfield on

26 1Judge Cobb has since retired. 27 2The Court notes that there are a variety of legal services available to parties 28 proceeding pro se, and resources may be found on the Court’s website, available at: 1 || what steps he specifically should take to serve Defendants. Because the deadline to 2 || serve Defendants has expired and Whitfield has not filed proof of service for either 3 || Defendant, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. If Whitfield wishes to 4 || pursue his claims, he must file a new action and properly serve any named defendants.* 5 It is therefore ordered that Whitfield’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 8) is denied. 6 It is further ordered that that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgement accordingly and close this case. 8 DATED THIS 12" Day of April 2022. 9 —— 10 A Sho LO 11 MIRANDA M. DU 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ||§$_ ————————— 3|f Whitfield does wish to file a new action, he may consider that “[a] long line of 25 || Supreme Court precedents acknowledges that, generally, a judge is immune from a suit 26 for money damages.” Acres Bonusing, Inc. v. Marston,

(9th Cir. 2021). There are “only two circumstances” when judicial immunity does not protect a judge from 97 || suit: (1) when the complained of action is not “a function normally performed by a judge” and does not deal with the judge “in [their] judicial capacity,” and (2) when an action, 28 || “though judicial in nature, [is] taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles v. Waco,

(1991).