Dotson v. Adams et al

Filing 22

ORDER on MOTION TO DISMISS, 14 . Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED as MOOT. Defendants may file an answer or other response to the First Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of service of this order. Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/1/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDWINA DOTSON,

8
9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-1199 AWI BAM
Plaintiff
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
DARREL ADAMS, Warden at CCWF, et
al.,

(Doc. No. 14)

Defendants

12
13
14

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.

15
See Doc. No. 14. However, on October 30, 2018, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties that
16
was signed by the Magistrate Judge, see Doc. No. 19, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
17
See Doc. No. 20.
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amended pleadings. In pertinent part, Rule 15
19
20
21

reads: “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A properly filed “amended complaint supersedes the original [complaint], the

22
latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d
23
24
25
26
27
28

1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). That is, “the original
pleading no longer performs any function.” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008.
Here, Plaintiff's amended complaint complies with Rule 15(a)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
first amended complaint is operative and the original complaint is “non-existent.” Ramirez, 806
F.3d at 1008. Because Defendants’ pending motion now attacks a complaint that is no longer

1 operative, the Court is required to deny the motion to dismiss as moot. See id. (“Because the
2 Defendants’ motion to dismiss targeted the Plaitniff’s First Amended Complaint, which was no
3 longer in effect, we conclude that the motion to dismiss should have been deemed moot before the
4 district court granted it.”).
5
6

ORDER

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED as MOOT; and

9

2.

Defendants may file an answer or other response to the First Amended Complaint

10

within twenty (20) days of service of this order.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: November 1, 2018

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2