UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 27, 2011
J. STOCKBRIDGE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT (Doc. 82)
Plaintiff Michael Contreraz, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 14, 2006. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed on February 3, 2009, against Defendants Stockbridge, Rodriguez, Franco, Davis, and Carlos and there is a scheduling order in effect. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend to add new claims and parties.
At this juncture, Plaintiff may not amend without leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, a motion seeking relief must "state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). In addition, the Court requires the submission of the proposed amended pleading in its entirety.
Plaintiff's motion does not set forth the proposed amendments and it is not accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint. The Court cannot evaluate, nor can Defendants respond to, a motion seeking leave to amend in the absence of specific information regarding the proposed amendments.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice, as procedurally deficient.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.