Opinion
2:22-cv-00302 KJM AC
06-08-2022
APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, filed a complaint and paid the filing fee on February 17, 2022. ECF No. 1. That same day, a scheduling order was issued in this case ordering the plaintiff to serve a copy of the scheduling order and complete service of process within 90 days of filing the complaint. ECF No. 3 at 1. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to complete service within 90 days may result in dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 40(m). Id. Plaintiff did not timely complete service, and on May 24, 2022, the court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, noting that filing affidavits of service would discharge the order. ECF No. 4.
On June 6, 2022, plaintiff filed a document labeled “notice” which, along with affidavits of service, asked the court for direction regarding the litigation of her claims. ECF No. 5. The court cannot answer the questions plaintiff asks because it would require the court to give legal advice. To receive such advice, plaintiff must contact an attorney, utilize her local law library, or seek out other resources for pro se litigants. The court cannot provide legal advice or instruct plaintiff on how to prosecute her claims.
Because plaintiff filed affidavits of service, the order to show cause (ECF No. 4) is DISCHARGED.