Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00582/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00582-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

EMILIA STRONG SYKES, )

et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 3:06cv582-MHT

BENJAMIN F. PAYTON, etc., ) (WO) 

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is currently before the court on

defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint. The

plaintiffs filed their original complaint on June 29,

2006. On July 10, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to

dismiss. On July 12, 2006, the plaintiffs filed the

amended complaint in question. The defendants have not

filed an answer to the original complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides, “A party

may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course

at any time before a responsive pleading is served ... .”

Case 3:06-cv-00582-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 2
The defendants argue that the amended complaint should be

struck because it was filed after the defendants filed

their motion to dismiss.

However, it “is well established in [the Eleventh

Circuit] that a motion to dismiss is not considered a

responsive pleading for purposes of rule 15(a).” Fortner

v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1032 (11th Cir. 1993). Thus,

the plaintiffs had a right to amend their complaint

because the defendants had not filed a responsive

pleading, only a motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants’

motion to strike (Doc. No. 19) is denied. 

DONE, this the 27th day of July, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00582-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2