IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARWAN RANSOM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-065

)

BRUCE LEMMON, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed by Defendants on February 24, 2012. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint (DE #8) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Marwan Ransom, originally filed his Complaint

against various State1

 and Medical2 Defendants in LaPorte Superior

Court, LaPorte County, Indiana. (DE #1.) Though counsel, the

1

 The Complaint originally named the State of Indiana, Indiana Department

of Corrections (“DOC”), Bruce Lemmon, Edwin G. Buss, Mark Levenhagen, Officer T.

Bean, Lieutenant Cain, and Officer C. Johnson (collectively, “State

Defendants”). 

2 The Complaint originally named Correctional Medical Services Inc. (n/k/a

Corizon, Inc.), Barbara Brubaker APN/NP, Janet Suleski RN, Medical Provider “A,”

and Medical Provider “B” (collectively, “Medical Defendants”). 
Medical Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 1,

2012 (DE #2), and they filed an Answer on February 9, 2012. (DE

#6.) The State Defendants, on the other hand, filed a Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 24, 2012. (DE #8.)3 On

May 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaint. (DE #16.) He attached the proposed Amended Complaint

to the motion as an exhibit. (DE #16-1.) That same day, Plaintiff

also filed a Response to the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

asserting that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied because the

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint “substantively addresses

the arguments” presented and that the proposed Amended Complaint

“makes substantive and specific allegations” that “properly

address[] the Plaintiff’s claims for relief.” (DE #17, pp. 1-2.) 

On June 4, 2012, the State Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. (DE #18.) Plaintiff

filed his reply on June 11, 2012. (DE #19.) 

On June 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Christopher Nuechterlein

granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

File Amended Complaint, indicating that Plaintiff “may amend the

complaint consistent with this order.” (DE # 20, p. 5.) 

On July 10, 2012, the State Defendants filed an Answer to the

proposed Amended Complaint. (DE #21.) However, the proposed

3

 The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint was subsequently amended. 

(See DE #14.)

2
Amended Complaint only appeared on the docket as an exhibit to the

Motion for Leave to Amend, and it had not been revised pursuant to

Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s June 26th Order. Therefore, this

Court ordered the Answer stricken as premature and directed

Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the Order

(DE #20) issued by Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein, on or before

August 10, 2012. The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint as

directed on August 4, 2012. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE #23) is now the controlling

document in this case. An amended complaint becomes controlling

once it is filed because the prior pleading is withdrawn by

operation of law. Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 780 (7th Cir.

2008); see also Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch.

Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998). Because the

Amended Complaint supersedes the Original Complaint, Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.

There is no Motion to Dismiss related to the Amended Complaint

on file. As such, any ruling on the Amended Complaint would be

wholly inappropriate. See Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Inc., 449

F.3d 751, 765 (7th Cir. 2006)(noting that a court “cannot sua

sponte enter summary judgment or dismiss a complaint without

notifying the parties of its intentions and allowing them an

3
opportunity to cure the defect in the complaint or to respond.”) 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss (DE #8)

is DENIED AS MOOT. 

DATED: August 9, 2012 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

4