Pilchesky v. Federal Marshal's Office of the United States et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust filed by Martin Payne, 21 MOTION to Substitute Party on Plaintiff's Counts of Invasion of Privacy, Intrusion upon Seclusion and Trespassing fil ed by Martin Payne, 20 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Martin Payne - we will DISMISS the pending pretrial motions relating to the plaintiffs prior complaint as moot, but without prejudice to renewal of these motions, once the plaintiff affects service of his amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 7, 2015. (kjn) (Main Document 28 replaced on 1/7/2015) (kjn).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH PILCHESKY,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
FEDERAL MARSHAL’S OFFICE :
OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., :
:
Defendants
:

Civil No. 3:14-CV-381
(Judge Mannion)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On March 4, 2014, plaintiff Joseph W. Pilchesky initiated this action by filing
a complaint against Marshal Pane and four John Doe Federal Marshals. On May 5,
2014, Mr. Pilchesky filed an amended complaint. On June 27, 2014, Mr. Pilchesky
filed a second amended complaint. Mr. Pilchesky’s Second Amended Complaint
contains three counts: Invasion of Privacy, Intrusion upon Seclusion, and Trespassing.
These three counts are common law claims, and not constitutional claims. On
September 23, 2014, the defendants filed a battery of potentially dispositive motions.
(Docs. 20-22.) Pilchesky, in turn, filed motion to compel disclosure of the names of
unnamed Deputy U.S. Marshals referred to in his second amended complaint. (Doc.
18.) On October 2, 2014, Pilchesky notified the Court that he had quadruple by-pass
surgery, and requested a stay of the instant matter for sixty (60) days to sufficiently

recover from by-pass surgery. We granted this request and ordered the parties to file
a joint status report on or before December 1, 2014, to address the status of the case,
and to propose a briefing schedule of the pending motions.
This status report, (Doc. 25.), explained that Pilchesky intended to amend his
complaint to add the previously unknown defendants, whose identities had apparently
been disclosed to him, and to attempt to rectify any deficiencies in the previous
complaints; but, at present, the pain in his chest impaired his ability to prepare court
documents. In order to accommodate the plaintiff’s medical and litigation needs the
parties jointly recommended that the Court set the following schedule in this case: (1)
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint will be due on or before January 5, 2014;
and (2) if plaintiff does not move to amend his complaint by January 5, 2014,
defendants will have 14 days (to January 19, 2014) to file briefs in support of their
current pending motions. The defendants also request that if the Court denies
plaintiff’s motion to amend, defendants will have 14 days after that Order deny the
motion to amend to file briefs in support of their current pending motions. We
concurred in this approach and entered an order directing that on or before January 5,
2014, the plaintiff should file a motion to amend his complaint, an accompanying
brief, and a proposed amended complaint as required by Local Rule 15.1. Further

-2-

briefing of this motion would then be conducted in accordance with the Rules of this
Court.
Pilchesky has complied with this order, in part, by timely filing a proposed
amended complaint, (Doc. 27.), although Pilchesky neglected to file a motion for leave
to amend as he had been instructed to do by the Court. In any event, the proposed
amended complaint will be accepted by the Court. Because the amended complaint
adds new defendants to this action, the plaintiff is ORDERED in accordance with Rule
4 to make arrangements to effect service of the complaint on these defendants as
required by the Rules of this Court.
We believe that this development also has substantive significance for the
parties since, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of any prior
complaint, effectively invalidating the prior 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 interposed, the
original pleading no longer performs any function in the case…."). Since the
complaint in this case has been amended, the prior complaints are now nullities, and
-3-

any pretrial motions challenging the prior complaint are now moot. Therefore, we will
DISMISS the pending pretrial motions relating to the plaintiff’s prior complaint,
(Docs. 20, 21, and 22.) as moot, but without prejudice to renewal of these motions,
once the plaintiff affects service of his amended complaint.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2015.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-