Opinion
3:22-cv-52-KAP
12-15-2023
EARNEST SCOTT, Jr., Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants
MEMORANDUM ORDER
KEITH A. PESTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, ECF no. 77, is denied. In my previous order I referred to the motion at ECF no. 71 being followed by 161 pages of exhibits. That was supplemented by the additional 100 pages of exhibits that trickled in at ECF no. 72 and ECF no. 73. Pro se litigants are allowed leeway where the detail of their pleadings suggests but does not state a claim with the precision expected from counsel, but plaintiff in his initial motion and here presents what I have found to be the more typical problem with pro se litigants, that is sending, once the pleading stage is completed, reams of raw material with the expectation that the court will act as their paralegal or advocate.
The parties shall proceed to filing their pretrial statements on the schedule previously ordered.