Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02212/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02212-0/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vera Wathen, surviving spouse and

personal representative of the Estate of

Christopher E. Wathen, deceased, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, a

public entity; Dora B. Schriro, Director of

ADOC, and John Doe Schriro, her

husband; Jerry Sternes and Jane Doe

Sternes, his wife; John and Jane Doe

Officers; John and Jane Doe Supervisors;

John Does I-X and Jane Does I-X, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2212-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations

in connection with the death of her husband, Chistopher E. Wathen. We have before us

defendants Arizona Department of Corrections, Dora Schriro, and Jerry Sternes’s motion to

dismiss (doc. 11), plaintiff’s response (doc. 12), and defendants’ reply (doc. 14). We also

have before us plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint and proposed first

amended complaint (docs. 17 & 18), and defendants’ response (doc. 19). 

Under Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party may amend a pleading once as of right at

any time before a responsive pleading has been filed. As defendants correctly concede, their

motion to dismiss is not a responsive filing, and plaintiff, therefore, retains the right to amend

Case 2:08-cv-02212-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/05/09 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 -

the complaint as a matter of course. Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P.; see also Miles v.

Dep’t of Army, 881 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A] motion to dismiss the complaint is

not a responsive pleading.”). 

Once a complaint has been amended, “[t]he amended complaint supersedes the

original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted). Because plaintiff has lodged a first amended complaint,

defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint is now moot and must be denied on

those grounds. This is, of course, without prejudice to defendants’ right file a motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot

(doc. 11). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend (doc. 17). The clerk shall file the lodged amended complaint under LRCiv. 15.1(c).

DATED this 5th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02212-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/05/09 Page 2 of 2