Santistevan v. USA et al

Filing 105

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 74 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants El Passo County Sheriff's Department, Phil Gurnett, and Terry Maketa. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/31/2012. (mehcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-01649-MEH-BNB ROSE A. SANTISTEVAN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a municipality; RICHARD MYERS, in his official capacity as Colorado Springs Chief of Police; JIMMY RODGERS, in his official and individual capacity; PHIL GURNETT, in his individual capacity; JACKSON ANDREWS, in his official and individual capacity; KEN MOORE, in his individual capacity; BRIAN MATTISON, in his individual capacity; OWEN MCCORMACK, in his individual capacity; JEFFERY KRAMMER, in his individual capacity; SCOTT ROBBLEE, in his individual capacity; JOHN DAVID, in his individual capacity; JASON HESS, in his individual capacity; MICHAEL SHALLER, in his individual capacity; KIMBLE GINGRICH, in his individual capacity; and OTHER UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, in their official and personal capacities, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 31, 2012. In light of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint in this matter on January 27, 2012, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants El Paso County Sheriff’s Department, Phil Gurnett, and Terry Maketa [filed October 13, 2011; docket #74] is denied as moot. See Franklin v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 160 F. App'x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect.”) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F. 2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991)). Defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?