Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying 68 Motion for Judge's assistance with Litigation signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/19/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISSAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12
13
14
15

1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR JUDGE’S ASSISTANCE
WITH LITIGATION
(ECF. No. 68.)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Issac Da’bour Dawson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with

20

Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on December 14, 2015, against Defendants Johnson, Guzman,

21

Gonzales and Sheldon on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable unclothed body

22

searches. (ECF No. 1.)

23

On December 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Judge to assist him with

24

filing a “proper” motion for summary judgment, or to grant his pending motion for summary

25

judgment filed on November 6, 2017. (ECF No. 68.) Plaintiff states that he is not represented

26

by counsel and cannot afford to retain counsel, and his prior motions for appointment of

27

counsel in this case have been denied by the court. (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks advice about how

28
1

1

to bring his witnesses to court without them being harassed by correctional officers for helping

2

him with his case.

3

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. A judge has “no obligation to act as counsel or

4

paralegal to pro se litigants” or “ to perform any legal ‘chores’ for the [litigant] that counsel

5

would normally carry out.” See Plilar v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 159 L.Ed.2d

6

338 (2004). Advising laypersons how to proceed with litigation is a task normally and properly

7

performed by trained counsel as a matter of course. Moreover, requiring or even allowing the

8

judge to assist Plaintiff with preparing a motion for summary judgment would undermine the

9

judge’s role as [an] impartial decision maker. Id.; also see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

10

1131 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to decide whether the court was required to inform a

11

litigant of deficiencies); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district

12

court lacks the power to act as a party's lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”).

13

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 19, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2