(PC) Harris v. Munoz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01800-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR STATUS IN HIS FILING 13 v. OF FEBRUARY 27, 2023 14 E. MUNOZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed an untitled document on February 27, 2023. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff notified the 20 Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court in its First Screening 21 Order, and also states he “file[d] 2# 1983 suits on the same day Earnest S. Harris v. I. Ceballos, I 22 wrote to the Court’s clerk asking about both 1983 suits, I thought the Court merged the two 1983 23 suits.” (Id., underline in original.) Plaintiff notes the screening order does not mention “Earnest S. 24 Harris v. I. Ceballos.” (Id., underline in original.) Plaintiff states he has “a copy of the 1983 suit 25 and the cover sheet” for that suit, indicating “[i]t was scanned on 12/14/21 by A. Turner, at CSP- 26 Sacramento.” (Id.) Plaintiff asks, “Do I have to refile it?” and “Can you please acknowledge that 27 the Court received it?” (Id.) 1 Regarding Plaintiff’s inquiry as to whether he should “refile” the action involving “I. 2 Ceballos,” Plaintiff is advised the Court cannot provide legal advice to litigants, even pro se 3 litigants who lack legal training. See, e.g., Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1366 (9th Cir. 1986) 4 (giving legal advice to a litigant “would entail the district court's becoming a player in the 5 adversary process rather than remaining its referee”). Plaintiff’s question seeks direction from the 6 Court as to how to proceed, which amounts to seeking legal advice. The Court cannot answer 7 Plaintiff’s question. 8 Plaintiff is further advised the Court has no record of a second case being filed on the 9 same date as this case. Further, there are no documents associated with this case that reference a 10 defendant “I. Ceballos.” Accordingly the Court cannot acknowledge receipt of any other action 11 filed in this Court by Plaintiff entitled “Earnest S. Harris v. I. Ceballos.” 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: March 2, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27