McKay et al v. Hayes
Filing
14
ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White denying plaintiff's instanter petition for declaratory judgment ( 12 Motion for Judgment) (lal, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Ronald Merl McKay, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 13-CIV-176-RAW
Acie V. Hayes, Jr.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ “Instanter Petition for Declaratory Judgment,” [Docket
No. 12] and Defendant’s objection in response [Docket No. 13].
Plaintiff’s Petition states fourteen (14) grounds for declaratory judgment. Some of
the listed grounds are subject matter jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, “capitis diminutio
maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization)”, courts of
admiralty, etc. Title 28 § 2201 of the United States Code provides that a federal court “may
declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,
whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
The court construes liberally the pleadings of all pro se litigants. Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The court cannot, however, serve as a litigant’s counsel.
See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). (... the
court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
arguments and searching the record.)
In his objection, Defendant states: “The Petition appears to seek declaratory judgment
by its heading but the content of the Petition and Brief in Support completely fail to identify
the issue for which declaratory judgment is sought.” Page 1.
The court has thoroughly
reviewed the petition, and cannot ascertain specifically what relief is being requested by
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Instanter Petition for Declaratory Judgment [Docket No. 12] is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2013.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2013.
J4h4i0
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?