Cope v. Brosius et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defts' mtns to dismiss filed in this action 13 15 16 are DISMISSED as moot, but without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate dispositive mtn challenging the amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on 2/25/13. (jc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD J. COPE,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BOROUGH OF MIDDLETOWN, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:

CIVIL NO. 4:12-CV-2382
(Judge Brann)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought by Edward Cope on November 29, 2012.
Following the filing of this complaint, the defendants responded by filing three
motions to dismiss various parties and claims. (Docs. 13, 15, and 16.) Upon receipt
of these motions, the plaintiff advised the court and the defendants of his intention to
endeavor to amend his complaint to meet the objections raised by various defendants
in their motions. (Docs. 18 and 19.) The plaintiff has now filed an amended
complaint. (Doc. 23.)
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 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 that original complaint is now moot. Therefore, we
will DISMISS the pending motions to dismiss as moot, but without prejudice to the
defendants renewing these motion as to the amended complaint, within the time limits
set by the rules of this court for filing responsive pleadings.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motions to dismiss filed
in this action (Docs. 13, 15 and 16.) are DISMISSED as moot, but without prejudice
to the filing of an appropriate dispositive motion challenging the amended complaint.
So ordered this 25th day of February 2013.

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

-2-