Opinion
2:19-cv-2114 JAM AC P
11-19-2021
GREGORY MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a motion for a ninety-day extension of all deadlines in the discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 40. The motion also appears to seek leave to amend the complaint to add an additional defendant. Id.
The motion alleges that plaintiff's referrals to a neurosurgeon and pain specialist have been delayed and that he has been “inconvenienced by these delays.” Id. at 2. However, plaintiff has not explained how the delays in his medical treatment have prevented him from propounding discovery or otherwise pursuing his case. Id. The motion will therefore be denied. If plaintiff chooses to file another motion for an extension of time, the motion must identify what deadlines plaintiff wants to extend, state how long of an extension he wants, and explain what he has been doing up to this point and why he is unable to meet the current deadlines.
Plaintiff also appears to request leave to amend the complaint to join Dr. Rudas as a defendant. Id at 1. However, plaintiff has failed to submit a proposed amended complaint and the motion will therefore be denied. Any request to amend the complaint must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint that will be subject to screening if the motion to amend is granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for extension of time and to amend the complaint, ECF No. 40, is DENIED.