Adams v. Obion County, TN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ NORMAN DEANDRE ADAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 1:19-cv-1121-STA-dkv ) OBION COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ) GARY “JIP” LOFTON, ) MIKE RICHARDS, and ) BENNY McGUIRE in their Official and ) Individual capacities, AND JOHN DOE, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Court is Plaintiff Norman DeAndre Adams’ Motion for Extension (ECF No. 23) filed on October 18, 2019. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his pleadings and cure certain defects identified in separate Rule 12(b)(6) Motions filed by Defendant Mike Richards and Defendants Gary Lofton, Benny McGuire, and Obion County, Tennessee. According to Plaintiff’s certificate of consultation, Defendants do not oppose his request to amend. For good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff has attached a copy of his proposed amended pleading to the Motion. For the sake of clarity, Plaintiff should file his amended pleading as a separate docket entry.

This leaves Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 14, 15) the initial Complaint. Because the Court is granting Plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, the Motions to Dismiss the original Complaint are now moot. It is well-settled that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the initial pleading a nullity. Heyward v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 759 F.3d 601, 617 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Courts in this Circuit routinely deny motions to dismiss a complaint as moot after a plaintiff subsequently files an amended complaint. E.g., Pinks v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 83 F. App’x 90 (6th Cir. 2003); Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Stutte, 298 F.R.D. 376, 380 (E.D. Tenn. 2014); Okolo v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 892 F. Supp. 2d 931, 948 (M.D. Tenn. 2012); Ellis v. Kaye-Kibbey, 581 F. Supp. 2d 861 (W.D. Mich. 2008). In light of the fact that the Court is granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, the original Complaint will be, strictly speaking, a nullity.

Therefore, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the initial Complaint are DENIED as moot and without prejudice to Defendants’ right to raise the same arguments and defenses in a subsequently filed dispositive motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: October 18, 2019