Shepard, v. Rangel et al.,

Filing 45

MINUTE ORDER that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 44 and attached Exhibits 1-18 [#44-2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -13, -14, - 15, -16, -17, -18, -19] are accepted for filing as of November 8,2012. Defendants who have already been served and entered their appearances in this case shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint 44 on or before November 29, 2012. Denying as moot 39 Motion to Dismiss; Denying as moot 40 Motion to Dismiss; Denying as moot 42 Motion to Dismiss; Denying as moot 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/9/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01108-RBJ-KLM
ROBERT DALE SHEPARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA RANGEL, ADX General Population Unit Manager, individually,
DAVID FOSTER, ADX Counselor, individually,
FNU GEORGE, ADX Correctional Officer, individually,
FNU SHEPHERD, ADX Correctional Officer, individually,
FNU ROY, ADX Correctional Officer, individually,
JOHN DOE #1G, whose true name is unknown, ADX Correctional Officer, individually, and
JOHN DOE # 2G, whose true name is unknown, ADX Correctional Officer, individually,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of First Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 44; Filed November 8, 2012]; on Defendant Patricia Rangel’s Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 20; Filed September 28, 2012];
on Defendant Darren1 Foster’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
[Docket No. 39; Filed October 25, 2012]; on Defendant Daniel Shepherd’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Docket No. 40; Filed October 25, 2012]; and on Defendant
Joshua George’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 42; Filed October 29, 2012]. On October
23, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time through November
12, 2012 in which to file Responses to Defendant Rangel’s Motion [#20]. Minute Order
[#38]. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff may amend his pleading once as
a matter of course “within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .”
Plaintiff has submitted his First Amended Complaint within this period. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [#44-1] and
attached Exhibits 1-18 [#44-2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -16, -17,
1

Defendant Darren Foster states that he is incorrectly identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint as
“David Foster.”

-1-

-18, -19] are accepted for filing as of November 8, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those Defendants who have already been served
and entered their appearances in this case shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint [#44-1] on or before November 29, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [#20, #39, #40,
#42] are DENIED as moot. See, e.g., Strich v. United States, No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM,
2010 WL 14826, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2010) (citations omitted) (“The filing of an
amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted
and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, No. 09-2021-JWL,
2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint
superseded original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original
complaint is denied as moot”); Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (D.
Colo. 2006) (noting that defendants’ motions to dismiss are “technically moot because they
are directed at a pleading that is no longer operative”).

Dated: November 9, 2012

-2-