Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00108-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

ALBERT LEE HOOD,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00108-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AS MOOT

(Doc. 24.)

I. BACKGROUND

Albert Lee Hood (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed the

Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint and issued an 

order on May 8, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court 

of his willingness to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment medical claims found cognizable 

against defendants Chuna, Taylor, Wibbles, and Zavala (“Defendants”). (Doc. 9.) On June 30, 

2014, Plaintiff notified the court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims. 

(Doc. 11.) On September 15, 2014, the court directed the United States Marshal to serve 

process upon the Defendants. (Doc. 19.)

On November 19, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure 

to state a claim. (Doc. 24.) The motion to dismiss is pending. 

Case 1:13-cv-00108-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

On May 26, 2015, with leave of court, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 32.) As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, because the First Amended Complaint 

has been filed, Plaintiff’s original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original Complaint is moot and shall be denied as 

such.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, filed on November 19, 2014, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00108-BAM Document 33 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 2