Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00731/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00731-5/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF ARIEL TORRES, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS

ELIZABETH BELTRAN, FREDERICK 

BEYERLEIN, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

CONNIE GIPSON, KEVIN HIXON, JEFFREY 

MACOMBER, ULISES OJEDA, AND DIANE 

TOCHE TO EITHER FILE A NOTICE OF 

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR 

A NOTICE INFORMING COURT WHY 

MOTION IS NOT MOOT

(ECF Nos. 14, 28) 

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On August 

15, 2024, Defendants Elizabeth Beltran, Frederick Beyerlein, California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, Connie Gipson, Kevin Hixon, Jeffrey Macomber, Ulises Ojeda, 

and Diane Toche (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (ECF No. 14.) 

The pending motion was referred to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 16.) 

In a motion for administrative relief, Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension of 

time to file a first amended complaint to September 13, 2024. (ECF Nos. 19, 22, 24.) On 

September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 28.)

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 29 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 3
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

“[A]n amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 

non-existent” and as no longer performing any function in the case. Ramirez v. County of San 

Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard 

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). The September 13, 2024 FAC has become 

the operative complaint in this action. The original complaint filed on June 21, 2024—the subject 

of the pending motion to dismiss—is now non-existent and performs no function in this case. See

Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. Because the Moving Defendants’ 12(b) motion is attacking a nonexistent complaint, the motion is ordinarily denied as moot. See id.; J.M. through McWilliams v. 

Tulare City Sch. Dist., No. 1:21-CV-1766 AWI EPG, 2022 WL 1489481, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 

11, 2022) (denying motion to dismiss as moot after filing of amended complaint within twentyone days); Ruffa v. S. California Edison Co., No. 1:22-CV-01556 ADA BAM, 2023 WL 

2143399, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (same); but see Baday v. Kings Cnty., No. 1:20-CV00644 ADA SKO, 2022 WL 10631010, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022) (noting that in the 

“unusual situation...[w]hen the amended complaint is substantially identical to the original...a 

court can rule on the motion to dismiss with reference to the amended complaint” because “[i]t 

would be futile to dismiss [a defendant's] motion without prejudice, only to have [the defendant] 

refile another motion to dismiss with effectively the same arguments”) (citation omitted).

Because the filing of the FAC on September 13, 2024 would ordinarily moot the motion 

to dismiss, the Court shall require the Moving Defendants to file a notice informing the Court 

why its pending motion is not moot, or, alternatively, file a notice to withdraw its motion to 

dismiss. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Elizabeth Beltran, Frederick Beyerlein, California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, Connie Gipson, Kevin Hixon, Jeffrey Macomber, 

Ulises Ojeda, and Diane Toche shall file a notice informing the Court why the 

pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is not moot, or, alternatively, file a notice 

to withdraw the motion to dismiss within five (5) days of the date of this order; 

and

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 29 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the Court’s recommendation to the 

District Judge that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 29 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 3