Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744-1/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 1

A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading.” See Crum v. Circus Circus

Enterprises, 231 F. 3d 1129, 1130 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-3744 MMC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN

LEANDRO’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR,

ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT

Before the Court is defendant City of San Leandro’s (“City”) motion, filed August 30,

2006, to dismiss plaintiff Nathaniel Willingham’s complaint or, alternatively, for a more

definite statement, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(e), respectively, of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed October 19, 2006,

seeking an extension of time to file opposition to the City’s motion. On October 20, 2006,

plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

A party may amend a pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1

 “[A]n amended pleading

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Bullen v. De

Bretteville, 239 F. 2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1957).

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 34 Filed 10/24/06 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

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot the City’s motion to dismiss or,

alternatively, for a more definite statement, and DENIES as moot plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time to file opposition to the City’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 34 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2