UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 31, 2011
E. GREENMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff Christopher Valles ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendant M. Barajas for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for clarification, filed September 13, 2011. Doc. 31.
Plaintiff reiterates his claims in his motion, and asks the Court to tell Plaintiff what the Court wants Plaintiff to do. Pl.'s Mot. 2. Plaintiff is vague as to what he means. If Plaintiff is asking the Court to advise Plaintiff on how to prosecute this action, the Court cannot. The Court may not act as an advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff as an incarcerated pro se litigant was informed of applicable deadlines and how to defend against dispositive motions filed by Defendant, if any. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 955-56 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). How Plaintiff decides to prosecute his action is for Plaintiff to decide.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion, filed September 13, 2011, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.