IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BRENT LEE RHODES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. CIV-25-1464-SLP v. ) ) ADT, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) O R D E R The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s “Reply Motion” [Doc. No. 7] to the Court’s Order [Doc. No. 4] dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with the opportunity to amend. In the submission, Plaintiff explains the reasoning behind the length of the original Complaint. See [Doc. No. 7] at 1-4. Plaintiff states he does not oppose amendment of the Complaint. Id. at 7 (“Plaintiff is willing to edit the Complaint . . . .”). Plaintiff does not specify any actionable relief but rather is asking the Court for instruction on how to amend. See id. at 8 (“The Plaintiff is begging the [C]ourt . . . for better direction if needed to edit the original complaint . . . .”). It is not the role of the courts to provide legal advice to litigants. See Hall v. Bellmon,

(10th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e do not believe it is the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”). The Court reminds Plaintiff that failure to file his amended complaint by December 30, 2025 will result in the Court entering a judgment of dismissal. See [Doc. No. 4] at 3. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17" day of December, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE