Bristol v. El Paso County Sheriff Dep. et al

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 28 Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED that pages 2-53 of the Letter 20 are accepted for filing as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/24/2014.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00012-RM-KLM
TOMMY WAYNE BRISTOL,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.,
C. MOTT, Deputy, and
N. NUNCIO, Deputy,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Letter [#20] and on Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss [#28]. Although filed as a Letter, this document is actually Plaintiff’s first
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff appears to attempt to correct some of the issues that were
the subject of previous Court Orders [#8, #16]. He is also permitted to amend his
Complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1)(A). The Letter was filed within 21 days of the Certificate of Service [#19] entered
by the Clerk of Court. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pages 2-53 of the Letter [#20] are accepted for filing
as Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
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 the
Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if appropriate, the Clerk shall attempt to obtain a
waiver of service from any newly-named Defendants. If unable to do so, the United States
Marshal shall serve the newly-named Defendants. All costs of service shall be advanced
by the United States.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#28] is DENIED as
moot. See, e.g., Strich v. United States, No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM, 2010 WL 14826, at
-1-

*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a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB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. April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and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: November 24, 2014

-2-