Opinion
Case No. 8:16-cv-00859-RBH-JDA
03-17-2017
Clifton Daryl Ray Liewald, Plaintiff, v. Warden McFadden,Capt. Brightharp, Lt. R. Cooper, Capt. Thomas, Tamara Ravenell, Sherisse Burch, Nurse Holcomb, Armand Cole, Major Ford, Major Nettles, Christine Long, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff [Doc. 79]; a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Defendants [Doc. 90]; and a motion to strike filed by Plaintiff [Doc. 97]. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment on September 26, 2016 [Doc. 79]; Defendants filed their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on November 14, 2016 [Doc. 90]. On March 17, 2017, with leave of Court, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed. [Doc. 118; see Doc. 116.]
If the Court were to address this motion on the merits, it would most likely construe the motion as a motion to dismiss because the only evidence Defendants rely on in their motion is related to Plaintiff's request for protective custody [Doc. 93-1], which Plaintiff references in the Complaint. Although Defendants raise arguments related to exhaustion, statute of limitations, and the merits of Plaintiff's claims, Defendants have failed to provide any evidence to support those claims, e.g. grievance forms or medical records, such that the Court would treat the motion as one for summary judgment.
An amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) ("As a general rule, 'an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.'" (quoting Crysen/Montenay Energy Co. v. Shell Oil Co. (In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.), 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000))); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2011) ("A pleading that has been amended . . . supersedes the pleading it modifies . . . . Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . . ."). As a result, motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot. See, e.g., Hall v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW, No. 3:10-cv-418-RJC-DSC, 2011 WL 4014315, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2011) (citing Colin v. Marconi Commerce Sys. Emps.' Ret. Plan, 335 F. Supp. 2d 590, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002)) (denying as moot the defendants' motions to dismiss because the second amended complaint rendered moot the defendants' pending motions to dismiss, which were related to the superseded complaint); McCoy v. City of Columbia, No. 3:10-132-JFA-JRM, 2010 WL 3447476, at *1-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2010) (adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to the extent it recommended that the motion to dismiss be found as moot because the amended complaint superseded the original complaint and rendered any attack upon it moot); Rowley v. City of N. Myrtle Beach, Nos. 4:06-1873-TLW-TER, 4:07-1636-TLW-TER, 2009 WL 750406, at *2-3 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2009) (finding as moot the defendants' motion to file answer out of time and the plaintiff's motion for default judgment based on the defendants' failure to timely answer the original complaint because "[t]he original complaint was, in a sense, amended out of existence." (quoting Thomas v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 1989 WL 11222, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 1989))). However, "if some of the defects raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading[ because to] hold otherwise would be to exalt form over substance." Wright et al., supra, § 1476 (emphasis added). For example, in Monster Daddy LLC v. Monster Cable Prods., Inc., the court held that because the plaintiff repeatedly asserted that the defendant's amended answer remained deficient, it would defy logic and exalt form over substance to accept the defendant's contention that the motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and affirmative defenses was moot after the defendant amended the answer. No. 6:10-1170-HMH, 2010 WL 4853661, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 23, 2010) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2010)).
Here, as stated, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint. [Doc. 118.] Defendants will have an opportunity to respond to the Amended Complaint, and all parties will have an opportunity to file dispositive motions directed at the Amended Complaint rather than the original Complaint. Accordingly, the Court recommends finding as moot Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, which are directed at the original Complaint, because the original Complaint was superseded by Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Additionally, although Plaintiff's motion to strike is filed as a motion to strike a response in opposition filed by Defendants, a review of the motion to strike reveals it seeks to strike the exhibit to Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. [See Doc. 97.] Because the Court recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment be found as moot, it further recommends that Plaintiff's motion to strike the exhibit be found as moot.
For example, Defendants assert that the Institutional Protective Custody Committee at Lieber responded to Plaintiff's concerns and the State Classification Committee Review is the committee that made the disposition. [Doc. 90-1 at 14.] Plaintiff's Amended Complaint adds as a Defendant Caroline Long, a purported member of the State Classification Committee Review, and removes as a Defendant A. Warden Blackwell. [Doc. 118; see Doc. 116.] Thus, Defendants' argument is directed at the original Complaint and not the Amended Complaint. Moreover, although Defendants raise arguments related to exhaustion of administrative remedies and statute of limitations that may continue to be directed at the Amended Complaint, they have failed to provide any evidentiary support for these arguments; thus, the Court finds it inappropriate to address these arguments at this time. If Defendants maintain these defenses bar Plaintiff's action, they will have an opportunity to assert them. --------
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends that (a) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 79] be FOUND AS MOOT; (b) Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [Doc. 90] be FOUND AS MOOT; and (c) Plaintiff's motion to strike [Doc. 97] be FOUND AS MOOT.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge March 17, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina