Withrow et al v. Mizelle et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Plaintiffs' request for direction from the court is denied in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER JAMES WITHROW,
DAVID J. WITHROW, and MARILYN
N. WITHROW,

8:18CV164

Plaintiffs,
vs.

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

NICHOLAS MIZELLE, DEBORAH
MIZELLE, MALLORY MIZELLE,
MARCI MIZELLE, REGIONAL
WEST MEDICAL CENTER, STATE
OF NEBRASKA, STATE BOARD OF
HEALTH VITAL RECORDS,
SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY ADULT
DETENTION CENTER, and UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MARSHAL SERVICE,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on correspondence from Plaintiffs David J.
Withrow and Marilyn N. Withrow (“Plaintiffs”), which the court construes as a
request for direction from the court. (Filing No. 6.) In their letter, Plaintiffs indicate
that they are husband and wife and “the main Plaintiffs in this suit.” (Id.) Plaintiffs
indicate that they are not prisoners, unlike their son and co-Plaintiff Christopher
James Withrow who is a prisoner. Plaintiffs ask “[i]f amending our suit to move
our son from being Plaintiff #1 to Plaintiff #2 or #3 will allow our suit to proceed
without further delay [due to the 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening requirements].”
(Id.)
First, to the extent Plaintiffs seek the court’s advice on whether they can
and/or should amend their suit to avoid the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the

court cannot provide such legal advice nor will the court act as Plaintiff’s legal
advisor. See Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 243 (3d Cir. 2013)
(citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183–84 (1984)) (“[T]here is no case
law requiring courts to provide general legal advice to pro se parties. In a long line
of cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly concluded that courts are under no such
obligation.”).
Second, as the court explained in its May 15, 2018 Memorandum and Order
denying Plaintiffs’ motion for service of summons, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is subject
to initial review because 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a court to review a civil
complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity” and “identify cognizable claims or dismiss
the complaint.” Because Christopher James Withrow is a prisoner and joined in
this action as a co-Plaintiff and because several governmental entities are named as
Defendants, review is required under section 1915A. The court will conduct this
review in its normal course of business. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for direction from the court is
denied in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 20th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2