Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-25/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARAONA, T. CAMPBELL, 

HERNANDEZ and WHITE,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

CONSTRUED MOTION FOR COURT 

ASSISTANCE

(Doc. No. 118)

On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a one-page pro se pleading titled “Summary 

Adjudication by Way of Agreed Statement of the Court Per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . 

Question of Law Let the Record Reflect . . .” which the Clerk docketed as a “Motion for 

Summary Judgment.” (Doc. No. 118). The pleading consists of a rambling and unintelligible 

litany of disjointed words and phrases. Plaintiff is advised that any motions requesting relief 

must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order[,]” and “state the relief sought[,]” 

which Plaintiff’s pleading fails to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Plaintiff’s motion consists only 

of words strings, many of which are illegible. To the extent discernable, Plaintiff requests the 

Court to “assist and provide investigations.” Thus, the Court does not construe the pleading as a 

motion for summary judgment but for the Court to assist Plaintiff with his case.1 

1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 120 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

At the outset, the Court is not permitted to render legal advice to any litigant, including 

pro se litigants. As acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court, requiring a federal judge to 

explain federal procedure or act as counsel for a pro se litigant “would undermine district judges’ role 

as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Jacobsen v. Filler,

790 F.2d 1362, 1365-66 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that providing legal advice to a pro se litigant 

“would entail the district court's [sic] becoming a player in the adversary process rather than 

remaining its referee.”). Plaintiff is free to pursue discovery to investigate his own claims, but 

this Court has no authority to conduct an investigation on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk of Cour shall correct the docket entry to reflect Plaintiff’s pro se pleading 

filed on January 8, 2025 (Doc. No. 118) is construed as a “motion for court 

assistance.”

2. Plaintiff’s construed motion for court assistance (Doc. No. 118) is DENIED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 

1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id.

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 120 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2