Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00305-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE EARLS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

CITY OF CLOVIS, OFFICER LUJAN, )

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0305 AWI SMS

ORDER VACATING MAY 15, 2006

HEARING DATE 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS OR FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT AS MOOT 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Document #6)

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or for a more

definite statement.

On April 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff states that

Plaintiff will amend the complaint in several respects, including removing class allegations,

removing Chief Zulin as a Defendant, and dropping claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Along

with his response, Plaintiff provided the court with a copy of his proposed amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

Before resolving the merits of Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, the court must

address the issue of a possible amended complaint. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that a “party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any

Case 1:06-cv-00305-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/04/06 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

time before a responsive pleading is served. . . . Otherwise a party may amend only by leave of

court. . . .” A motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is not a “responsive pleading” that

would terminate a plaintiff’s right to amend the complaint. Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494,

497 (9th Cir.1995); Schreiber Distrib. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th

Cir.1986); Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 1389 605, 607 (9th Cir.1984); Breier v. Northern

California Bowling Proprietors' Ass'n, 316 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir.1963). Because Defendants

did not file a responsive pleading, but only a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff does not need leave of

court to file an amended complaint. See Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65 F.3d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir.

1995); Doe, 58 F.3d at 497. Once filed, the amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint in its entirety, and the court will proceed with the amended complaint. See London v.

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811 (9th Cir.1981); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

 Defendants’ motion addressing the original complaint becomes moot once the amended

complaint is filed. To avoid any unnecessary work by the parties and the court, the court will

direct Plaintiff to file the amended complaint, deny the motion to dismiss directed at the original

complaint as moot, and allow Defendants the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss or any other

response to the amended complaint.

ORDER 

Accordingly, the court orders that:

1. The previously set hearing date of May 15, 2006, is VACATED, and the parties shall not

appear at that time;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement is DENIED as moot;

3. Plaintiff shall file his proposed amended complaint within ten days of this order’s date of

service;

4. Defendants SHALL FILE a response to the amended complaint within twenty days of the

date Plaintiff files his amended complaint; and

Case 1:06-cv-00305-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/04/06 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

5. Plaintiff is forewarned that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in

sanctions, up to dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00305-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 3