Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02925/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 –

16cv2925

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELON DAWSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHAN MILLS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-02925-BAS-AGS

ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 7]

On February 17, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

Rather, she filed a First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2017. (ECF No. 8.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may file an amended 

pleading “once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under 

Rule 12(b)[.]” Here, Plaintiff filed her amended pleading within 21 days after Defendant 

served his motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, Plaintiff did not require leave of 

court to amend her pleading, and her First Amended Complaint is now the operative 

pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Further, Plaintiff’s “amended complaint supersedes 

Case 3:16-cv-02925-BAS-AGS Document 12 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 –

16cv2925

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

the original,” and her initial Complaint is now treated as “non-existent.” See ValadezLopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore 

TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial Complaint 

(ECF No. 7). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02925-BAS-AGS Document 12 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2