IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 12, 2007
CHARLES WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 189), averring that his former attorney changed the structure of his complaint, removed vital evidence from the complaint, and reduced the amount of damages sought,*fn1 and it appearing that jury selection is currently scheduled for June 5, 2007 (see Doc. 171), that the complaint was filed in 2001 (see Doc. 1), that plaintiff began representing himself in the above-captioned action on October 7, 2005 (see Docs. 87, 88), and that plaintiff does not explain his delay in requesting to amend the complaint, see Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 134 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that "undue delay" is a factor for a district court to consider when reviewing a request to amend), and the court finding that an amendment at this late juncture in the proceedings would prejudice defendant Norris B. Webb, see id. ("[A] district court has discretion to deny a request to amend if it is apparent from the record that . . . the amendment would prejudice the other party."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 189) is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff's right to present any admissible evidence in support of his remaining Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Norris B. Webb.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge