Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00533/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00533-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. WINDSOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0533 KJN P 

ORDER 

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

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

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

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

plaintiff’s pain management. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. 

Case 2:15-cv-00533-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

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

No. 33) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: May 10, 2016 

/cw/woma0533.10b 

Case 2:15-cv-00533-MCE-KJN Document 34 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2