Opinion
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00967-REB-KMT
08-31-2011
TIMOTHY JOHN KENNEDY, Plaintiff, v. MARK A. FINLEY, ERNEST ROGER PEELE, SHERIFF JOHN WESLEY ANDERSON, EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Motion To Dismiss by Defendant Peele [#19] filed August 15, 2011; and (2) the Motion To Dismiss by Defendant United States of America [#20] filed August 19, 2011. Shortly after the motions were filed, and prior to the time responses were due, plaintiff filed his Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand [#21] on August 30, 2011. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
"[#27]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order
The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the superceded complaint. See Griggs v. Jornayvaz, 2009 WL 1464408 at *1 (D. Colo. May 22, 2009); United States ex rel. Babb v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2007 WL 1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007). Thus, the motions to dismiss are moot and will be denied without prejudice on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Motion To Dismiss by Defendant Peele [#19] filed August 15, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; and
2. That Motion To Dismiss by Defendant United States of America [#20] filed August 19, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
Dated August 31, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Robert E. Blackbum
United States District Judge