From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tosic v. Blakemore-Tomason

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 10, 2023
No. C23-0619JLR (W.D. Wash. May. 10, 2023)

Opinion

C23-0619JLR

05-10-2023

PREDRAG TOSIC, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER BLAKEMORE-TOMASON, Defendant.


ORDER

JAMES L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court is Plaintiff Predrag Tosic's motion for clarification regarding “minute orders and some other procedural matters.” (Mot. (Dkt. # 13).) The court has reviewed Mr. Tosic's request and, for the reasons stated herein, DENIES it.

In his motion, Mr. Tosic ostensibly responds to the court's April 28, 2023 Minute Order ordering Mr. Tosic to cure certain filing deficiencies. (See 4/28/23 Min. Order (Dkt. # 3) (ordering Mr. Tosic to file a copy of the operative complaint).) Mr. Tosic asks the court to clarify which of his state court pleadings is the operative complaint and poses a litany of other procedural and legal questions regarding his case. (See generally Mot.)

The court, however, cannot give legal advice to pro se parties, except to recommend they seek the advice of a trained attorney. The United States Supreme Court has concluded that “[d]istrict judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants,” because requiring federal district judges to explain the details of federal procedure or act as a pro se litigant's counsel “would undermine district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365-66 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that advising pro se litigants would make the court “a player in the adversary process rather than remaining its referee”).

See also, e.g., United States ex rel. Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Wash., No. C16-0052JLR, 2020 WL 949940 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2020) (denying pro se party's request for legal advice); Ellenwood v. Dep't of Corr. Mental/Medical Health, No. C08-5197FDB, 2008 WL 2323926, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2008) (same); Hopper v. Wigen, No. C05-5662FDB, 2006 WL 166360, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2006) (same).

The court therefore DENIES Mr. Tosic's motion for clarification (Dkt. # 13) and recommends that Mr. Tosic seek the advice of a trained attorney and review this District's Pro Se Guide. See W.D. Wash., Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit in Federal Court (rev'd April 2023), https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ProSeGuidetoFilingYourLawsuitinFederalCourt.pdf.


Summaries of

Tosic v. Blakemore-Tomason

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 10, 2023
No. C23-0619JLR (W.D. Wash. May. 10, 2023)
Case details for

Tosic v. Blakemore-Tomason

Case Details

Full title:PREDRAG TOSIC, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER BLAKEMORE-TOMASON, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: May 10, 2023

Citations

No. C23-0619JLR (W.D. Wash. May. 10, 2023)