Rook v. Holbrook, C18-233 JCC-BAT. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20181116e75
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner requests the Court respond to the following question: "Did you see any particular issue that requires a more articulated argument or briefing " Dkt. 30. It is inappropriate for the Court to advise a party. The Court, for instance, cannot advise Respondent what arguments it should raise or articulate; likewise the Court cannot advise Petitioner. Petitioner should also note because he is r
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner requests the Court respond to the following question: "Did you see any particular issue that requires a more articulated argument or briefing " Dkt. 30. It is inappropriate for the Court to advise a party. The Court, for instance, cannot advise Respondent what arguments it should raise or articulate; likewise the Court cannot advise Petitioner. Petitioner should also note because he is re..
More
ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner requests the Court respond to the following question: "Did you see any particular issue that requires a more articulated argument or briefing?" Dkt. 30. It is inappropriate for the Court to advise a party. The Court, for instance, cannot advise Respondent what arguments it should raise or articulate; likewise the Court cannot advise Petitioner. 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.
Source: Leagle
