IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 25, 2010
CHARLES E. WALKER, PLAINTIFF,
A. KARELAS, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting help from the court in preparing his pretrial statement. Plaintiff explains that he is unfamiliar with the process and that he no longer has contact with his jailhouse lawyer. Moreover, plaintiff indicates that he has been transferred to a new prison and is not allowed access to the law library until after he has completed the orientation process. Lastly, according to his motion filed August 16, 2010, plaintiff was unable to timely file a pretrial statement in this action because he never received the court's September 21, 2009 scheduling order.
The court declines to provide plaintiff with legal advice. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). However, plaintiff is directed to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 281, which outlines the form and contents of a proper pretrial statement. To the extent that plaintiff is in need of additional time to prepare his pretrial statement, the court will grant plaintiff an additional fourteen days to file his pretrial statement in this case, good cause appearing.*fn1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's August 5, 2010 motion for assistance in preparing his pretrial statement (Doc. No. 55) is denied;
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of Local Rule 281 and a copy of the court's September 21, 2009 scheduling order (Doc. No. 44);
3. Plaintiff's August 16, 2010 motion to correct the scheduling order (Doc. No. 57) is denied as having been rendered moot; and
4. Plaintiff shall file and serve his pretrial statement on or before September 13, 2010.