Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01047-PAB-BNB.
November 21, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before me on the plaintiff's Motion for Status Clairification [sic] [Doc. # 29, filed 11/18/2008] (the "Motion"). The Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks clarification and DENIED to the extent it seeks any other relief.
On July 3, 2008, the district judge ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint and a separate document showing cause why his claims should not be dismissed or transferred to another district for lack of proper venue and personal jurisdiction [Doc. #15]. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a response to the show cause order on July 29, 2008 [Docs. #25 and #26].
On August 18, 2008, I denied the plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel [Doc. #27]. As a part of my analysis of whether appointment of counsel is appropriate, I determined that the plaintiff's amended complaint adequately presents his claims. The plaintiff seeks clarification regarding whether this determination is "to be interpreted by the parties as court acceptance of the Amended Complaint sufficiently to resume process service and prosecution of the case." It is not. My determination that the plaintiff has adequately presented his claims was made solely in the context of deciding whether appointment of counsel is necessary. The district judge has not made any ruling in connection with his show cause order.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks clarification of my order and DENIED to the extent it seeks any other relief.