Woodstock v. Larimer County Sheriff et al

Filing 147

ORDER that plaintiffs Final Order Request 145 , filed February 22, 2016, construed as a motion to clarify the effect of my prior order, is denied, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/23/2016.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00041-REB-KMT
JONATHAN (LANE) WOODSTOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. S. SHAFFER,
CHAPLAIN BRET RICKARD,
CAPTAIN PALMER, and
S. JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Final Order Request [#145],1 filed February
22, 2016. The motion has been docketed as a motion to clarify, and I construe it
accordingly.
By this motion, plaintiff asks whether my Order Overruling Objections to and
Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#124], filed January
14, 2016, which dismissed some, but not all, plaintiff’s claims against Lieutenant Shaffer
and Captain Palmer, is a final, appealable order. To answer this inquiry, however, I
would be required to give plaintiff legal advice, which is beyond the bounds of the
court’s proper function. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e do

1
“[#145]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

not believe it is the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate
for the pro se litigant.”); Landry v. Davis, 2009 WL 274242 at *4 (D. Kan. Jan. 26,
2009) (“Federal courts may not provide legal advice to a pro se litigant, just as they may
not provide legal advice to a party represented by an attorney.”). Thus, I may not
respond to his query.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Final Order Request [#145], filed
February 22, 2016, construed as a motion to clarify the effect of my prior order, is
denied.
Dated February 23, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2