Dahlstrom v. Inslee et al

Filing 38

ORDER. The Court STRIKES as moot the pending motions to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 10 , 11 . Defendants United States of America, DHS, ICE, CBP, and USCIS are no longer party to this action subject to Dahlstrom's voluntary notices of dismissal. Dkt. N o. 20 -- 24 . Remaining Defendants Inslee, State of Washington, Washington State Patrol, Christopher John Daigle, and Casey K. Corey may refile their motion to dismiss, but only if it is directed at the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

RAJU A.T. DAHLSTROM,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:25-cv-262-JNW
ORDER

v.
JAY ROBERT INSLEE, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON
STATE PATROL, CHRISTOPHER
JOHN DAIGLE, CASEY K. COREY,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, MICHAEL E.
HAAS, SCOTT W. ROSEKRANS,
WALTER H. PERRY, THOMAS A.
BROTHERTON, JAMES MITCHELL
KENNEDY, JILL LANDES, KEITH
CHANDLER HARPER,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The Court raises this matter on its own accord. On February 18, 2025,
Defendants United States of America, Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), United States
Customs and Border Protection (CPB), United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), Jay Robert Inslee, State of Washington, Washington State Patrol,

23
ORDER - 1

1

Christopher John Daigle, and Casey K. Corey moved to dismiss Plaintiff Raju A.T.

2

Dahlstrom’s complaint. Dkt. Nos. 10, 11.

3

On March 3, 2025, Dahlstrom filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 25.

4

Because Dahlstrom filed less than 21 days after Defendants moved to dismiss, he

5

did not need to obtain leave from the Court or Defendants to amend his complaint.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of

7

course no later than . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)[.]”).

8

Generally, “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it

9

without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012).

10

“‘Courts often apply this rule to motions to dismiss a complaint that has since been

11

superseded and deny such motions as moot.’” Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of Am.,

12

Inc., No. 2:21-CV-01465-JHC, 2022 WL 7631419, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 13, 2022)

13

(quoting Bisson v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C12-0995-JLR, 2012 WL 5866309, at *1

14

(W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2012)). Dahlstrom’s Amended Complaint supersedes the

15

original complaint and is now the operative complaint here.

16

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES as moot the pending motions to dismiss,

17

Dkt. Nos. 10, 11. Defendants United States of America, DHS, ICE, CBP, and USCIS

18

are no longer party to this action subject to Dahlstrom’s voluntary notices of

19

dismissal. Dkt. No. 20–24. Remaining Defendants Inslee, State of Washington,

20

Washington State Patrol, Christopher John Daigle, and Casey K. Corey may refile

21

their motion to dismiss, but only if it is directed at the Amended Complaint.

22
23
ORDER - 2

1

Dated this 10th day of March, 2025.

2

A

3

Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER - 3