Womack v. Windsor, et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/10/16 DENYING without prejudice 33 Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0533 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. WINDSOR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant action proceeds on claims that defendants Dr.

19

Windsor, Dr. Lankford, Dr. Lee and T. Mahoney were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s

20

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, specifically in connection with

21

plaintiff’s pain management.

22

On May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s

23

motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner,

24

plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis

25

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Moreover, plaintiff was informed in this court’s April 29, 2016

26

order that if he sought leave to amend, his motion to amend must be accompanied by a proposed

27

amended complaint. (ECF No. 31 at 2.) Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended

28

complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF

2

No. 33) is denied without prejudice.

3

Dated: May 10, 2016

4
5
6
/cw/woma0533.10b

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2