Reaves v. Pennsylvania State Police et al

Filing 12

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1: Defts shall respond to the amended complaint in acc w/ the FRCP.; 2. Motion 9 is DENIED as MOOT w/out prejudice. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 03/26/10. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TONY REAVES, : : Plaintiff : : v. : : PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, : JEFFREY MILLER, STEVEN RANCK, : and JACK LAUFER, : : Defendants : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-2549 (Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 11), see FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(A), and of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 9), and the court finding that an amended complaint renders the original complaint a legal nullity, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) ("An amended complaint supercedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit."); 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as moot without prejudice. 2. S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

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?