Opinion
ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION FROM PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL (DOCUMENT 72)
DENNIS L. BECK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Kelvin Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 20, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the action to this Court with instructions to vacate the judgment.
Pursuant to the July 23, 2014, Notice of Appearance, Plaintiff is represented by counsel for the limited purpose of resolving the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 27, 2014. However, on January 16, 2015, the Court vacated the dates and stayed all discovery pending a ruling on Defendants’ November 25, 2014, motion for judgment on the pleadings based on exhaustion. The Court also stated that Plaintiff’s counsel would be the sole representative for Plaintiff, both before the Court and in discussions with Defendants.
On January 22, 2015, the Court received a “Motion for Request for Judicial Notice” from Plaintiff, on his own behalf. The motion does not state the relief requested, though it appears from Plaintiff’s exhibits that he may be seeking counsel for all aspects of this case.
Where a represented plaintiff files a pleading on his own behalf, the Court will often strike the document. In this instance, however, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff’s counsel to communicate with Plaintiff and clarify his request to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.