Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Estrada v. Hamby

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 30, 2007

PABLO ESTRADA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM HAMBY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are two similar motions filed by plaintiff seeking leave to amend his complaint "to clarify the records," which plaintiff asserts will permit the Court to determine which claims to allow and which to deny. (Docs. 23 and 25). Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended complaint, as required by Local Rule 15.1.

Also before the Court is plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 24).

A review of the record reveals that U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan has already reviewed the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and dismissed several claims, some with prejudice, others without prejudice. (Doc. 10). Thus, the Court has already determined which claims to allow to proceed, and which to dismiss. However, the Court did authorize plaintiff to amend his complaint to clarify whether Michael Holmes or Marge Holmes denied him medical care with respect to Count 1. (Doc.10, p. 5). In addition, with respect to Count 4, the Court invited plaintiff to amend his complaint to specify which of the fifty named defendants allegedly provided him with the wrong medication. (Doc. 10, p. 7). Similarly, the Court invited plaintiff to amend his complaint to specify which of the fifty named defendants allegedly retaliated against him, and what acts form the basis of the claim. (Doc. 10, p. 8). Plaintiff was also invited to amend Count 6 to identify the defendants involved and give a more definite statement of the claim of denial of access to medical care. (Doc. 10, pp. 8-9). Therefore, amendment of the complaint is warranted, but without a proposed amended complaint (in the form required by Local Rule 15.1*fn1 ) for review, the Court cannot grant plaintiff blanket permission to file an amended complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for leave to amend and supplement his complaint (Docs. 23 and 25) are DENIED, as plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 15.1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (Doc. 24) is GRANTED, in that plaintiff shall have until February 14, 2007, to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint, and submit a proposed amended complaint in compliance with Local Rule 15.1.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.