Mr. Chambers sued jail officials in Georgia for deliberate indifference related to 2019 events. Judge Pannell adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to dismiss Mr. Chambers's pro se complaint for failure to state a claim after screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Chambers v. Pounds, No. 21-112, 2021 WL 4995822, at *2 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 30, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-11264, 2023 WL 2232062 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023). Mr. Chambers appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Thus, when the Amended Complaint was filed, all Defendants except Ocwen were terminated. See Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that under Alabama and federal law an amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case); see also Wooden v. Andino, No. 22-12716, 2023 WL 2854720, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2023) (noting that claims against defendant who was dropped from amended complaint were not addressed in district court's order of dismissal); Chambers v. Pounds, No. 21-11264, 2023 WL 2232062, at *3 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023) (“Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.”) (quoting 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2016).
See 5 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1234, at 381-85 (3d ed. 2004) (“[A] complaint will be held defective . . . if [it] fails to connect the defendant with the alleged wrong.”); see also, e.g., Chambers v. Pounds, No. 21-11264, 2023 WL 2232062, at *3 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023) (dismissing prisoner's claims against two defendants because the complaint did not attribute any acts or omissions to them). The undersigned emphasizes that this recommendation of dismissal of the four “Unidentified Officers” is not based on Perea's failure to identify them with sufficient particularity, but because the third amended complaint does not explain how they were involved in Clemons's assault.