Rhodes v. ADT LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRENT LEE RHODES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1464-SLP
O R D E R
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s “Reply Motion” [Doc. No. 7] to the Court’s
Order [Doc. No. 4] dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with the opportunity to amend. In the
submission, Plaintiff explains the reasoning behind the length of the original Complaint.
See [Doc. No. 7] at 1-4. Plaintiff states he does not oppose amendment of the Complaint.
Id. at 7 (“Plaintiff is willing to edit the Complaint . . . .”). Plaintiff does not specify any
actionable relief but rather is asking the Court for instruction on how to amend. See id. at
8 (“The Plaintiff is begging the [C]ourt . . . for better direction if needed to edit the original
complaint . . . .”). It is not the role of the courts to provide legal advice to litigants. See
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e do not believe it is the proper
function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”). The
Court reminds Plaintiff that failure to file his amended complaint by December 30, 2025
will result in the Court entering a judgment of dismissal. See [Doc. No. 4] at 3.
Case 5:25-cv-01464-SLP Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01464-SLP Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 2