Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado grants Steven Angelo Apodaca’s unopposed motion to amend his complaint. The court orders the amended complaint docketed and directs defendants to respond by January 7, 2026. Because the amended complaint supersedes the prior pleading, the court recommends denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot and without prejudice, and denies the motion to stay as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
- Whether the pending motion to dismiss became moot when the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
- Whether the defendants' motion to stay discovery became moot after the motion to dismiss was recommended for denial as moot.
Holdings
- The plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend the complaint was granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
- The motion to dismiss directed at the now-inoperative pleading should be denied as moot and without prejudice.
- The motion to stay was denied as moot because it sought a stay pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, which was recommended for denial as moot.
Key quotations
“The filing of an amended complaint moots any motions to dismiss aimed at a now- inoperative pleading.”
Factual background
Plaintiff brought a civil-rights action against Fagrelius Clark, Stephen Giles, and Isom. After the court required an amended complaint during initial review, defendants moved to dismiss the operative pleading and sought a stay of discovery pending resolution of that motion. Plaintiff later submitted an unopposed motion to amend the complaint.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action on February 28, 2025, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After an initial screening under D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants later moved to dismiss and to stay discovery. Plaintiff then moved to amend again; defendants did not oppose. The magistrate judge granted the amendment, concluded that the existing dismissal motion was directed at an inoperative pleading, recommended denial of that motion as moot and without prejudice, and denied the stay motion as moot.