Rook v. Holbrook

Filing 31

ORDER re Petitioner's 30 Request for clarification. It is inappropriate for the Court to advise a party. Petitioner should also note because he is represented by counsel, he does not have the right to file his own pro se pleadings, and that so long as Petitioner is represented, the Court will strike all future pro se pleadings. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

GUY ADAM ROOK,
Petitioner,

9
10
11

ORDER REGARDING
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION

v.
DONALD HOLBROOK,
Respondent.

12
13

CASE NO. C18-233 JCC-BAT

Petitioner requests the Court respond to the following question: “Did you see any

14

particular issue that requires a more articulated argument or briefing?” Dkt. 30. It is

15

inappropriate for the Court to advise a party. The Court, for instance, cannot advise Respondent

16

what arguments it should raise or articulate; likewise the Court cannot advise Petitioner.

17

Petitioner should also note because he is represented by counsel, he does not have the right to file

18

his own pro se pleadings, and that so long as Petitioner is represented, the Court will strike all

19

future pro se pleadings.

20

DATED this 15th day of November, 2018.

21

A

22

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

23

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - 1