McIntyre v. City of Rochester et al
ORDER denying as moot defendants' 5 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 1/9/17. (EMA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DECISION AND ORDER
CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al.,
Plaintiff Jessie McIntyre brought this action pro se in June 2016, assertying claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Rochester (“City”) and two “John Doe” defendants. After
the City moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Dkt. #5), plaintiff, through newly-retained counsel, filed an amended complaint (Dkt.
#8). The City has not moved against or otherwise responded to the amended complaint.
The City’s motion to dismiss is based on its arguments that the original complaint did not
identify any policy or custom that could give rise to municipal liability, and that plaintiff had not
alleged any facts in support of his “negligent training” claim. See Dkt. #5-1 at 2-3.
At least on its face, the amended complaint appears to address those alleged defects. It
sets forth factual allegations regarding the City’s policies and customs, and the City’s allegedly
inadequate training of the police officers involved in the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims.
See Dkt. #8 ¶¶ 4, 19-25.1
The Court finds, therefore, that the filing of the amended complaint moots the motion to
dismiss the original complaint. See, e.g., American Med. Distributors, Inc. v. Saturna Group
The amended complaint also asserts claims against three named individuals.
Chartered Accountants, LLP, No. 15-cv-6532, 2016 WL 3920224, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 15,
2016) (defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint were rendered moot by plaintiff’s filing of
an amended complaint). The motion to dismiss is therefore denied as moot.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #5) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
January 9, 2017.
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?