Opinion
1:21-CV-00348-RAL
05-19-2022
LARRY ALLEN SLEDGE, Plaintiff, v. COUNSELOR HEATHER MARTIN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RYAN TARASOVICH, LT. BEGANICS, Defendants,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 22) AS MOOT
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Larry Allen Sledge (“Sledge”), representing himself, filed this civil rights action alleging that the Defendants violated his rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. See ECF No. 8. Originally named as Defendants were several employees of the Erie County Prison: Shawn Bolt, Heather Martin, Ryan Tarasovich, as well as numerous “unknown correctional officers.” See id., ¶¶ 4-7. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 22. In response, Sledge filed the following documents: a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28); an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29); a brief in support of the response in opposition (ECF No. 30); and a “supplement” to his response in opposition (ECF No. 31).
Sledge's multiple filings have muddied the procedural waters. Owing to his pro se status, the Court offers the following clarification. Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff typically has two choices: file a response in opposition or file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure any defects or deficiencies the Defendants called into question in their motion. See, e.g, Williams v. Nyberg, 2021 WL 7501828, p. 1, n.l (W.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2021). A plaintiff should not do what Sledge has done here and file both. This creates confusion as to whether a plaintiff wishes to oppose the motion to dismiss (and stand by his previously filed complaint) or desires to proceed under the Amended Complaint.
Here, the Court will resolve the uncertainty in favor of Sledge's Amended Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure permits the filing of an Amended Complaint in response to a motion to dismiss without leave of Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within ... (B) 21 days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b) .. .”). In general, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering the previously-filed pleading a nullity; the amended complaint becomes the operative pleading. See Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019). Thus, Sledge's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29) is now the operative pleading in this case. The Court notes that Sledge has eliminated Defendant Bolt and the unknown officer defendants and has named a new defendant (Defendant Lt. Beganics) in the Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 29, ¶ 4. Sledge contends that Beganics sprayed him with OC spray on January 4, 2020, “during a verbal dispute without any verbal warning from the Defendant (Beganics).” Id. Thus, Sledge is hereby ordered to provide the Court with a completed United States Marshal's USM 285 form for Defendant Beganics so that the Complaint may be served on him. The appropriate forms are provided together with this order and should be returned to the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days.
This Rule embodies the federal court's policy of liberal pleading amendment by ensuring that an inadvertent error in, or omission from, an original pleading will not preclude a party from security relief on the merits of this claim. See Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 2006).
Given that the Defendants' motion to dismiss challenged the previous (and now inoperative) complaint, that motion is denied as moot. In light of that denial, the Defendants have several options. After reviewing the Amended Complaint, they may file a new motion to dismiss within thirty days of the date of this order or an Answer to the Amended Complaint within fourteen days. In the alternative, the Defendants may notify the Court of their intention to stand on their previous motion in its entirety. The Court would then reactivate the motion (ECF No. 22) and accompanying documents (ECF No. 23). Also, they may stand on their prior motion and file a supplementary memorandum addressing any new allegations brought in the Amended Complaint. Sledge would then be afforded thirty days to file a response. Further amendment of pleadings would not be permitted without leave of court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3).