Santos v. County of Lake, Indiana et al

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER: Because the second amended complaint supersedes the previous complaints, the pending motions to dismiss 16 & 18 are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/20/2017. (jss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION ADRIAN SANTOS, III, Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF LAKE, INDIANA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 2:17-CV-273 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on “Defendant Sheriff John Buncich Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” and “Defendant, County of Lake, Indiana’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” (DE #16 & DE #18.) For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED AS MOOT. On November 1, 2017, Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint and ordered it to be filed as a separate docket entry within seven days of the date of his order. (DE #26.) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was filed on November 3, 2017. (DE #27.) An amended complaint becomes controlling once it is filed because the prior pleading is withdrawn by operation of law. Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 780 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998). Because the second amended complaint supersedes the previous complaints, the pending motions to dismiss (DE #16 & DE #18) are DENIED AS MOOT. DATED: November 20, 2017 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 2

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?