Katchatag v. Brooks et al

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