IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 29, 2010
CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,
AMADOR COUNTY, ET AL.,
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On December 6, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint against Amador County, Linda Van Vleck (an Amador County code enforcement officer), and John Hahn (an Amador County counsel) alleging, among other things, violations of plaintiff's Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment rights to due process, civil conspiracy, negligence, and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and numerous state statutes. Dckt. No. 1. On December 27, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, Dckt. No. 9, and noticed the motion for hearing on February 2, 2011.
However, also on December 27, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).
Effective December 1, 2009, Rule 15(a)(1) provides that "[a] party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days
after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after
service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier."*fn1
Because plaintiff's amended complaint was filed within 21
days of the date he served his initial complaint (on December 6, 2010,
see Dckt. No. 4) and within 21 days of the date defendants served
their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b), plaintiff was entitled
to amend his complaint "as a matter of course."
In light of plaintiff's amended complaint, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint is denied as moot. The amended complaint supersedes the earlier complaint which defendants have moved to dismiss, rendering the earlier complaint of no legal effect and the motion to dismiss moot. See Ramirez v. Silgan Containers, 2007 WL 1241829, at *6 (Apr. 26, 2007).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 9, is denied as moot; and
2. The February 2, 2011 hearing on that motion is vacated.