Timothy John Kennedy v. Mark Finely, et al

Filing 23

ORDER. The Motion To Dismiss by Defendant Peele 19 filed 8/15/2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. The Motion To Dismiss by Defendant United States of America 20 filed 8/19/2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/31/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00967-REB-KMT
TIMOTHY JOHN KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK A. FINLEY,
ERNEST ROGER PEELE,
SHERIFF JOHN WESLEY ANDERSON,
EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Motion To Dismiss by Defendant
Peele [#19]1 filed August 15, 2011; and (2) the Motion To Dismiss by Defendant
United States of America [#20] filed August 19, 2011. Shortly after the motions were
filed, and prior to the time responses were due, plaintiff filed his Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint and Jury Demand [#21] on August 30, 2011. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 15(a)(1)(B).
The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the
superceded complaint. See Griggs v. Jornayvaz, 2009 WL 1464408 at *1 (D. Colo.

1

“[#27]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order

May 22, 2009); United States ex rel. Babb v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2007 WL
1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007). Thus, the motions to dismiss are moot and will
be denied without prejudice on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Motion To Dismiss by Defendant Peele [#19] filed August 15,
2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; and
2. That Motion To Dismiss by Defendant United States of America [#20] filed
August 19, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
Dated August 31, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2