Court Opinion

ID: 9364844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 15:00:54.2601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.840642
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT M. MILLER,

              Plaintiff,

       v.                                             Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03035 (CJN)

MARTIN J. GRUENBERG, Acting
Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,
et al.,

              Defendants.

                                             ORDER

        This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Miller’s Motion for Leave to Amend his

complaint, ECF No. 56, and his First and Second Motions for Sanctions, ECF Nos. 30 and 41.

Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the original complaint, ECF No. 22.

        In light of Miller’s pro se status, the Court grants Miller leave to amend his complaint. See

Moore v. USAID, 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Pro se litigants are allowed more latitude

than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in . . . pleadings.”). Defendants’ motion to

dismiss the original complaint is accordingly denied as moot. See Johnson v. D.C., Civ. A. No.

13-1445 (JDB), 2015 WL 4396698, at *5 (D.D.C. July 17, 2015) (denying as moot the defendant’s

motion to dismiss the original complaint because an amended complaint supersedes an original

complaint). Finally, the Court denies Miller’s motions for sanctions because Defendants’ conduct

does not constitute a violation of Rule 11. See Long v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 207 F.R.D. 4, 6

(D.D.C. 2002) (“The Court has discretion to decide whether a Rule 11 violation has occurred and

what sanctions should be imposed if there has been a violation.”).

                                                 1
        Accordingly, it is

        ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 56, is GRANTED; and

it is further

        ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 55, shall be docketed as

the operative complaint; and it is further

        ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 22, is DENIED AS MOOT;

and it is further

        ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on or

before February 24, 2023; and it is further

        ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First and Second Motions for Sanctions, ECF Nos. 30 and 41,

are DENIED.

DATE: January 20, 2023                                  _____________________
                                                        CARL J. NICHOLS
                                                        United States District Judge

                                              2