Ransom v. Indiana State of et al

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER: denying as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/9/2012. (rmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MARWAN RANSOM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRUCE LEMMON,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-065

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed by Defendants on February 24, 2012.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint (DE #8) is DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Marwan Ransom, originally filed his Complaint
against various State1 and Medical2 Defendants in LaPorte Superior
Court, LaPorte County, Indiana.

(DE #1.)

Though counsel, the

1

The Complaint originally named the State of Indiana, Indiana Department
of Corrections (“DOC”), Bruce Lemmon, Edwin G. Buss, Mark Levenhagen, Officer T.
Bean, Lieutenant Cain, and Officer C. Johnson (collectively, “State
Defendants”).
2

The Complaint originally named Correctional Medical Services Inc. (n/k/a
Corizon, Inc.), Barbara Brubaker APN/NP, Janet Suleski RN, Medical Provider “A,”
and Medical Provider “B” (collectively, “Medical Defendants”).

Medical Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 1,
2012 (DE #2), and they filed an Answer on February 9, 2012.
#6.)

(DE

The State Defendants, on the other hand, filed a Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 24, 2012.

(DE #8.)3

On

May 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint.

(DE #16.)

He attached the proposed Amended Complaint

to the motion as an exhibit.

(DE #16-1.)

That same day, Plaintiff

also filed a Response to the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
asserting that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied because the
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint “substantively addresses
the arguments” presented and that the proposed Amended Complaint
“makes

substantive

and

specific

allegations”

address[] the Plaintiff’s claims for relief.”

that

“properly

(DE #17, pp. 1-2.)

On June 4, 2012, the State Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint.
filed his reply on June 11, 2012.

(DE #18.)

Plaintiff

(DE #19.)

On June 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Christopher Nuechterlein
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint, indicating that Plaintiff “may amend the
complaint consistent with this order.”

(DE # 20, p. 5.)

On July 10, 2012, the State Defendants filed an Answer to the
proposed Amended Complaint.

(DE #21.)

3

However, the proposed

The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint was subsequently amended.
(See DE #14.)

2

Amended Complaint only appeared on the docket as an exhibit to the
Motion for Leave to Amend, and it had not been revised pursuant to
Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s June 26th Order.
Court

ordered

the

Answer

stricken

as

Therefore, this

premature

and

directed

Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Order
(DE #20) issued by Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein, on or before
August 10, 2012.

The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint as

directed on August 4, 2012.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE #23) is now the controlling
document in this case.

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

Amended Complaint supersedes the Original Complaint, Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.
There is no Motion to Dismiss related to the Amended Complaint
on file.

As such, any ruling on the Amended Complaint would be

wholly inappropriate.

See Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Inc., 449

F.3d 751, 765 (7th Cir. 2006)(noting that a court “cannot sua
sponte enter summary judgment or dismiss a complaint without
notifying the parties of its intentions and allowing them an
3

opportunity to cure the defect in the complaint or to respond.”)

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss (DE #8)
is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: August 9, 2012

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

4