United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 23, 24
RALPH R. BEISTLINE, District Judge.
I. PENDING MOTIONS
At Docket 23 Plaintiff Clarence Leon Dews, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a document that appears to be a request to direct the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to treat pro se attorney correspondence as legal mail and issue a summons in this case. At Docket 24 Dews filed a document, when considered together with the document filed at Docket 25, appears to be a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or, in the alternative, a request for a writ of error coram nobis. 
The record reflects the following actions in chronological order:
May 9, 2013 - the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.
June 19, 2013 - Because Dews did not file an amended complaint within the time allowed, after denying Dew's motion to extend the time to file an amended complaint,  the Court entered its judgment dismissing the case without prejudice.
June 6, 2014 - Dews moved for an extension of time of one year within which to present a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. 
June 10, 2014 - The Court denied Dews' request for an extension.
July 10, 2014 - The date the documents filed at Dockets 23 and 25 appear to have been signed.
July 11, 2014 - The date the document filed at Docket 24 appears to have been signed.
A. Motion at Docket 23
In this motion Dews contends that he is a "jailhouse lawyer" entitled to represent nine additional named inmates. Although not entirely clear, Dews appears to challenge the prior order of this Court denying Dews' standing to serve as legal representative for additional inmates. Also attached to the motion are a summons that appears to be directed to the California Attorney General and various CDCR officials and a subpoena that appears to be directed to various CDCR officials.
As the Court previously ruled, although Dews styles himself as a "jailhouse lawyer, " he is not admitted to the bar as an attorney; therefore, although he is permitted to represent himself before this Court, he is not qualified to represent any other person before it. Dews has cited no authority that supports his contention that he is so ...