Ibarra v. Snohomish County et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge James L. Robart denying as moot Plaintiff's 61 Motion for Extension of Time. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

PETE IBARRA III,

CASE NO. C16-0317JLR
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.
12
13

SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff Pete Ibarra III’s motion for an extension.1 (Mot. (Dkt.

16

# 61).) On April 5, 2017, Mr. Ibarra and Defendants Snohomish County, Kathy Marino,

17

and James Simoneschi (collectively, “Defendants”) stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of

18
1

19
20
21
22

Defendants Snohomish County, Kathy Marino, and James Simoneschi filed a response
opposing Mr. Ibarra’s motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 62).) Because the court denies Mr. Ibarra’s motion
as moot, the court does not substantively consider Defendants’ response. Moreover, to the extent
Mr. Ibarra’s motion seeks legal advice, the court declines to provide him with such advice. See
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 232 (2004) (“Requiring district courts to advise a pro se
litigant . . . would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.”); Jacobsen v.
Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1366 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that providing legal advice to litigants would
“entail the district court’s becoming a player in the adversary process rather than remaining its
referee”).

ORDER - 1

1

this matter without prejudice. (Stip. (Dkt. # 59).) On the same day, the court granted the

2

parties’ stipulated motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. (See 4/5/17 Order

3

(Dkt. # 60).) Accordingly, this case is now closed. (See Dkt.) The court therefore

4

DENIES Mr. Ibarra’s motion for an extension (Dkt. # 61) as moot.

5

Dated this 24th day of April, 2017.

6
7

A

8

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2