Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01530-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion is set to 

be heard on December 14, 2015. The motion to dismiss was filed on November 5, 2015. 

However, on November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amended pleadings. In pertinent part, Rule 

15(a) reads: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . ., if the 

pleading is one to which a response pleading is required, 21 days after service of the responsive 

pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 

Amendments made within the time limits of Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course do not require 

leave of court. See Reeves v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 885 F.Supp.2d 384, 388 n.4 (D. D.C. 2012); 

cf. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly filed 

“amended complaint supersedes the original [complaint], the latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.” Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, --- F.3d ---, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277, *15 

(9th Cir. 2015); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).

LYLE S. McFARLAND,

Plaintiff

v.

CITY OF CLOVIS, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-01530-AWI-SMS 

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND 

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. No. 6)

Case 1:15-cv-01530-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/03/15 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

Here, Plaintiff's amended complaint is timely under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) since it was filed 

within 21 days of the motion to dismiss. Defendants’ motion now attacks a complaint that is no 

longer operative. Ramirez, --- F.3d ---, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277 at *15. Therefore, 

Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. Id.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The December 14, 2015, hearing on Defendants' motion is VACATED;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED as MOOT; and

3. Defendants may file an answer or other responsive motion or pleading to the First 

Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01530-AWI-SAB Document 14 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2