Chenalo
(PC) Thomas v. Chenalo
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALBERT EUGENE THOMAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01185-ADA-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUED REQUEST FOR LEGAL
v. ADVICE FLORES, et al., (Doc. No. 41) Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN
EXTENSION OF TIME
AUGUST 25, 2023, DEADLINE
17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Clarification.” (Doc. No. 41 “Motion”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks clarification as to whether he is to respond to Defendants’ purportedly unsigned and undated motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2). The Court is required to strike unsigned filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); L.R. 131(b). L.R. 131(b). The Court did not strike Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because it is signed and dated. (Doc. No. 40-1 at 13). The Court does not advise litigants on how to litigate a…