From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Enlers

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 3, 2021
2:20-cv-2399-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-2399-JAM-EFB P

09-03-2021

JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. E. ENLERS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a two-page document. ECF No. 26. The first page is titled “Motion to Leave to Amend 9-10-21” and is devoid of substance or argument. Id. at 1. The second page is a proof of service for a “Motion to Compel Discovery.” Id. at 2. Defendant has opposed the motion to amend. ECF No. 27.

Plaintiff has neither included a proposed amended complaint nor stated why he seeks leave to amend his complaint. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. To the extent there is any confusion on the matter, the court notes that plaintiff is not required to amend his complaint.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to amend (ECF No. 26) is DENIED without prejudice.

The court also notes that it is not in receipt of any motion to compel, despite plaintiffs proof of service purporting to have served the same.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Enlers

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 3, 2021
2:20-cv-2399-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Enlers

Case Details

Full title:JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. E. ENLERS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 3, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-2399-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021)