Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00714/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00714-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIO DINERO SESSOMS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

R.N. HELEN THORNTON; R.N.

FRANCES SSEMPEBWA; DR.

EDWARD BIRDSONG; DR.

KUMAR; DR. POMPAN; DR. JOHN

DOWBAK; DR. ELIZABETH B.

SCHNEIDER; DR. T.W. WY; DR.

BRIGHT; DR. A. ADAMS; G. ELLIS;

RANDY GROUNDS,

Defendants

 /

Nos. C 13-0714 WHA (PR) 

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO

FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT;

DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO AMEND; STAYING CASE

(Docket No. 77)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42

U.S.C. 1983. The sole surviving claim is that Defendant Dr. Bright violated his Eighth

Amendment rights by providing inadequate care for his knee. The case was referred for

mediation proceedings, which have now been held. The case did not settle. 

Good and just cause appearing, plaintiff is referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project for

location and of pro bono counsel. Upon an attorney being located to represent plaintiff, that

attorney shall be appointed as counsel for plaintiff in this matter until further order of the court. 

All proceedings in this action, except the service of defendants as ordered herein, are stayed

until four weeks from the date an attorney is appointed to represent plaintiff in this action.

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add claims

against a new defendant. The proposed second amended complaint includes defendants who

Case 3:13-cv-00714-WHA Document 81 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

have been granted summary judgment and who have been dismissed. Plaintiff concedes that he

does not want to revive claims against them. The motion for leave to amend is DENIED without

prejudice to filing a new motion with counsel after the stay ordered herein has been lifted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30 , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-00714-WHA Document 81 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2