Katona v. Asure et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend (Doc. 115 .) is GRANTED, and further proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of the plaintiffs second amended complaint. (Doc. 116 .) Therefore, we will DISMISS the pending motions to dismiss the plaintiffs first amended complaint (Docs. 74 and 86 .) as moot, but without prejudice to the defendants renewing these motions as to the second amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on February 6, 2013. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MATTHEW KATONA,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
DONNA ASURE, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 1:11-CV-1817

(Judge Rambo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff, a state prisoner, commenced this action by filing a pro se
complaint, (Doc. 1.), which the plaintiff later amended on June 12, 2012. The
defendants subsequently moved to dismiss certain counts and claims in this amended
complaint, including claims for injunctive relief and claims involving alleged verbal
harassment of the plaintiff. (Docs. 74 and 86.)
Following the filing of these motions to dismiss, on December 26, 2012, the
plaintiff sought leave to file a second amended complaint, which appears to address
at least some of the issues raised by the motions to dismiss by deleting claims for
injunctive relief, and re-pleading other claims. (Docs. 115 and 116.) The defendants
have not opposed this motion, and the time for filing an opposition has passed,

1

therefore, the defendants are deemed not to oppose the motion to amend and the
motion will be GRANTED. Such motions are governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which strongly favors amendment of pleadings. Rule
15(a), F.R. Civ. P. In this case the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint by
deleting his request for injunctive relief and re-pleading his other claims. Therefore,
the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend this complaint under Rule 15. Of
course, nothing in this decision implies any views on the ultimate merits of the issues
raised in the amended complaint, an issue that will be reserved for another time.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s
motion for leave to amend (Doc. 115.) is GRANTED, and further proceedings shall
be conducted on the basis of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Doc. 116.)
We believe that this development has substantive significance for the parties
since, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of the original
complaint, effectively invalidating the original complaint. Crysen/Montenay Energy
Co. v. Shell Oil Co. (In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.), 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir.
2000) ("[A]n amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of
no legal effect"); see 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("A pleading that has been
amended … supersedes the pleading it modifies…. Once an amended pleading is
2

interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case….").
Since the complaint in this case has been amended, the original complaint is now a
nullity, and any motion to dismiss challenging a count contained in that original
complaint is now moot. Therefore, we will DISMISS the pending motions to dismiss
the plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Docs. 74 and 86.) as moot, but without
prejudice to the defendants renewing these motions as to the second amended
complaint.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February 2013.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3