Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00172/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00172-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

RAYMOND C. KATCHATAG,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

LAURA BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00172-RRB

ORDER

Raymond C. Katchatag, a self-represented prisoner, has filed a Motion for 

Clarification of Second Amended Complaint at Docket 19. Mr. Katchatag requests 

that the Court send him a sample claim and “break this down for me so I can better 

understand as these are from the 2nd Amended Complaint.”1 He also requests an 

extension of time to file his Second Amended Complaint at Docket 20.

The Court already has issued its order and guidance regarding the 

amendment of Mr. Katchatag’s complaint.

2 District courts cannot issue advisory 

opinions.3 Therefore, the Court cannot respond to Mr. Katchatag’s inquiry. 

1 Docket 19 at 1–2.

2 See Dockets 7, 10, 15, 20, 24, 27, 30, 33, 42.

3 See Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 103 (1982) (citing Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 

45, 48 (1969) “live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory

opinions on abstract questions of law.”); see also U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. 

Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 

401 (1975)) (“‘The exercise of judicial power under Art. III of the Constitution depends on 

Case 3:19-cv-00172-RRB Document 22 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 2
3:19-cv-00172-RRB, Katchatag v. Brooks, et al.

Order

Page 2 of 2

The Motion for Clarification of Second Amended Complaint at Docket 19 is 

DENIED.

The Motion for an Extension of Time at Docket 20 is GRANTED. 

Mr.Katchatag’s Second Amended Complaint is due by April 27, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 5th day of March, 2020.

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline

Ralph R. Beistline 

Senior United States District Judge

the existence of a case or controversy,’ and ‘a federal court [lacks] the power to render 

advisory opinions.’”).

Case 3:19-cv-00172-RRB Document 22 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 2