Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01468-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IMHOTEP SALAT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL PIROTTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01468-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Before the 

court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s initial complaint (ECF No. 12) as well as 

plaintiff’s motion to appear telephonically (ECF No. 21). For the reasons discussed below, the 

court vacates defendants’ motion to dismiss and denies plaintiff’s request to appear 

telephonically, as both are now moot. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On June 19, 2014, plaintiff filed an initial complaint against defendants along with an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Plaintiff’s initial complaint includes 

claims for violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On 

July 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. 

On October 15, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s initial complaint, arguing 

that (1) plaintiff failed to allege a custom, policy, or practice was the driving force behind the 

Case 2:14-cv-01468-MCE-AC Document 23 Filed 11/14/14 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

violation of his constitutional rights; (2) the Younger Abstention Doctrine mandates that the court 

abstain from adjudicating plaintiff’s claims in light of the fact that plaintiff is involved in related 

ongoing civil and criminal litigation in state court; and (3) plaintiff’s claims based on violation of 

his Fifth Amendment rights must be dismissed because the Fifth Amendment does not apply to 

local government entities. ECF No. 12 at 1–2. On October 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint. ECF No. 15. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amended pleadings. In pertinent part, Rule 

15(a) reads: “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . , if the 

pleading is one to which a response pleading is required, 21 days after service of the responsive 

pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .“ Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 

A properly filed “amended complaint supersedes the original [complaint], the latter being treated 

thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); Loux 

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

ANALYSIS 

 The court finds that defendants’ motion to dismiss is moot, as plaintiff’s initial complaint 

has been superseded by his first amended complaint. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s initial complaint on October 15, 2014. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff filed his first amended 

complaint on October 30, 2014, ECF No. 15, well within the twenty-one (21) day period allowed 

after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s initial 

complaint has been superseded by his first amended complaint and the court will vacate 

defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice to a motion addressed to the amended 

complaint. 

In light of this order, the court will vacate the hearing scheduled for November 19, 2014, 

and deny plaintiff’s request to appear telephonically as moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, is vacated; 

2. The court’s November 19, 2014, hearing is vacated; 

Case 2:14-cv-01468-MCE-AC Document 23 Filed 11/14/14 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

3. Plaintiff’s request to appear telephonically at the court’s November 19, 2014, hearing, 

ECF No. 21, is denied; and 

4. Defendants are directed to file a responsive pleading or 12(b) motion within twentyone (21) days of this order. 

DATED: November 14, 2014 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01468-MCE-AC Document 23 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 3