employ attorneys who can lawfully give legal advice to litigants or potential litigants, the elected District Clerks of Texas’ many counties rarely .employ attorneys for such purposes and are not constitutionally obligated to furnish prisoners with the sort of legal advice the Clerks of the federal courts provide to pro se litigants. The defendant’s rejection of plaintiffs submissions was based upon an objectively reasonable reliance upon a constitutionally valid state statutory scheme that imposes perfectly appropriate burdens upon prison inmates who wish to proceed In Forma Pauperis in the state trial courts. All of the plaintiffs requests for relief in this cause are without merit. Plaintiffs motion for default'judgment iv.P. 56(e). See also Cormier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d at 1561, (<HOLDING>). 68 . See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment holding that a district court may not consider either hearsay evidence in affidavits or unsworn documents in a summary judgment proceeding