Opinion
Civil Action No. 6:16-1655-JMC-KFM
03-01-2017
Charles Christopher Williams, Petitioner, v. Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South Carlina Department of Corrections; Joseph McFadden, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(DEATH PENALTY CASE)
This matter is before the court on the respondents' motion for summary judgment (doc. 69). Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c)(D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review post-trial petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2016, the Honorable J. Michelle Childs, United States District Judge, stayed the petitioner's execution and appointed Teresa Norris, Esq., and William H. Ehlies, II, Esq., as the petitioner's counsel (doc. 11). On August 29, 2016, the undersigned granted the petitioner's motion to extend the stay of execution and the time to file the petition until November 28, 2016 (doc. 30). On November 23, 2016, Judge Childs denied the petitioner's motion to extend the stay of execution and the time to file the petition, noting that the petitioner could renew his motion to extend the stay of execution after he filed the petition and further noting that motions for leave to amend a petition in such circumstances are often viewed favorably by the courts (doc. 45). The petitioner filed his petition on November 28, 2016 (doc. 46), and, on January 6, 207, Judge Childs granted in part the petitioner's motion to extend the stay of execution (doc. 57).
The respondents filed a return and motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2017 (docs. 68, 69). On February 15, 2017, the petitioner filed a motion to amend his petition, and, on the same date, he filed an amended petition (docs. 73, 74). The undersigned granted the motion to amend without objection from the respondents on February 16, 2017 (doc. 76). Also on February 16, 2017, the undersigned entered an amended scheduling order, setting out deadlines for the respondents' answer to the amended petition and any dispositive motions, the petitioner's response to any dispositive motions, and the respondents' reply (doc. 77).
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
A timely filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (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., 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2017) ("A pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case[,] and any subsequent motion made by an opposing party should be directed at the amended pleading."). As a result, motions directed at the superseded pleading generally are to be denied as moot. See, e.g., Sigmon v. Byars, C.A. No. 8:13-1399-RBH-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 2014) (order finding motion for summary judgment directed at original petition moot based on filing of amended petition in death penalty habeas case); 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) ("It is well-settled that a timely filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.") (citations omitted); McCoy v. City of Columbia, C.A. No. 3:10-132-JFA-JRM, 2010 WL 3447476, at *1-2 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2010) (adopting magistrate judge's recommendation finding motion to dismiss moot because amended complaint superseded the original complaint and rendered any attack upon it moot).
Here, the respondents filed the pending motion for summary judgment prior to the filing of the amended petition, which contains additional evidentiary detail, supplementary allegations, and additional grounds for relief. Furthermore, the court has filed an amended scheduling order establishing a briefing schedule based on the amended petition. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the district court find as moot the respondents' pending motion for summary judgment (doc. 69), which is directed at the original petition, as the original petition has been superseded by the amended petition and the respondents will have an opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment addressing the amended petition.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the respondents' motion for summary judgment (doc. 69) should be found moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge March 1, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina