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)

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pleading is withdrawn by operation of law.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