Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01469-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ALLEN; BROOKE ALLEN, a )

minor suing through her legal )

representative, TOMMY ALLEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPUTY BILL RICHARDSON AND )

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 1:06-CV-01469 AWI -SMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER RE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS

[Docs. 12 and 13]

Defendants have noticed for hearing and decision motions to dismiss and for more

definite statement. The matter was set for hearing on February 5, 2007, but the hearing was

vacated and the matter taken under submission.

On November 27, 2006, Defendants Fresno City Police Officer Derik Kumagai,

Fresno Police Officer Valerie Dunn and Fresno Police Detective Robert Lincoln filed a

motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for a more

definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). On the same day, Defendants Fresno County

Sheriff Deputy Christian Curtice, Fresno County Sheriff Deputy Romeo Grajeda, and County

of Fresno filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same basis. 

Case 1:06-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/16/07 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

Plaintiffs sought and received an extension of time until January 5, 2007, to file an

opposition to Defendants’ motions. However, Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. Rather,

on February 4, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended

complaint before a responsive pleading was filed, as they were entitled to do pursuant to

Rule 15(a). “It is hornbook law that an amended pleading supersedes the original, the latter

being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9 Cir. th

1956), cert. den., 353 U.S. 947, 77 S.Ct. 825 (1957). Therefore, Defendants’ motions to

dismiss are based on a pleading which no longer has any force or effect in this case.

ORDER

In light of the above, Defendants’ motions to dismiss filed November 27, 2006, are

hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2