Berry v. Swingle et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/06/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SPENCER E. BERRY,

11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13

DOROTHY SWINGLE, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with this civil rights

16
17

No. 2: 12-cv-0363 LKK KJN P

action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint.

18
19

Plaintiff alleges that he has identified one of the “doe” defendants named in the original

20

complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to amend was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended

21

complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to

22

the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a

23

proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. For this reason, plaintiff’s

24

motion to amend is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint

25

must contain all claims against all defendants.

26

////

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 25, 2012 motion for

1
2

leave to amend (Dkt. No. 17) is denied without prejudice.

3

DATED: June 6, 2012

4
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7

ber363.ame

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2