Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00098/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision *

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD E. HARRIS, )

) 2:08-cv-0098-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

v. ) DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b) MOTION*

)

BARBARA DILLMAN, individually and )

as Superintendent of Schools for )

the Siskiyou County Office of )

Education; the SISKIYOU COUNTY )

OFFICE OF EDUCATION; TIMOTHY )

PAPPAS, individually and as Deputy )

District Attorney in the Office of )

the Siskiyou County District )

Attorney; PETER F. KNOLL and KIRK ) 

ANDRUS, both individually, and as )

District Attorneys for the County )

of Siskiyou and the County of )

Siskiyou, a political subdivision, )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

On March 13, 2008, Defendants Barbara Dillman, individually and

as Superintendent of Schools for the Siskiyou County Department of

Case 2:08-cv-00098-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Education and “seven” individual Members of the Siskiyou County Board

of Education (“Defendants”), filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. 

On April 7, 2008 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. 

Under Rule 15(a), “A party may amend the party's pleading once as

a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). “A motion to dismiss is not a

‘responsive pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 15.” Crum v. Circus

Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000). An “amended

complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter

as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th

Cir. 1997).

Here, Defendants did not file an answer, but instead filed a

motion to dismiss. Therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to file his

amended complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a). The amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the original

complaint is treated as non-existent. Accordingly, Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss filed March 13, 2008, is mooted by Plaintiff’s

filing of an amended complaint and is denied.

Dated: April 8, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00098-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2