Faircloth v. Schwartz, et al

Filing 84

MINUTE ORDER: Defendants shall file a Response to Plaintiff's Motionfor Order [# 66 ] on or before 8/15/2013. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [#79] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#79-1] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [#79-1] on or before 8/19/2013. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [# 71 ] is DENIED as moot. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/1/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02764-REB-KLM
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CELIA SCHWARTZ, Legal Assistant for BVCF, in her official and individual capacities, and
GERRY BLAND, Hearings Officer for BVMC/BVCF, in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Court Order to Compel
Colorado Dept. of Corrections Legal Services Dept. and Crowley Correctional Facility
to Not Impede Access to Colorado Court Rule Compliance Mandates [Docket No. 66;
Filed April 29, 2013] (the “Motion for Order”); on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint (Doc. 57) [Docket No. 71; Filed June 4, 2013] (the “Motion to Dismiss”); and
on Plaintiff’s Petition for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Docket No. 79; Filed July
29, 2013] (the “Motion to Amend”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Order [#66] on or before August 15, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [#79] is GRANTED.
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [#79-1] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#79-1] on or before August 19, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#71] is 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
-1-

a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB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. April 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: August 1, 2013

-2-