IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION LADARRIUS PERRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SGT. J. ACRED (9862), individually and as ) an MPD officer; SGT. J. BOYD (11189), ) individually and as an MPD officer; SGT. C. ) WINBUSH (2876), individually and as an ) No. 2:24-cv-02986-SHL-tmp MPD officer; LOBI BEASLEY, individually ) and as an MPD; B. COCKMAN (12733), ) individually and as an MPD officer; C. ) BEATY (6842), individually and as an MPD ) officer; JOHN DOES 1-4, individually and ) as an MPD officers; Chief CERELYN ) DAVIS, in her official capacity; and CITY ) OF MEMPHIS, a municipality, ) Defendants. ) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Defendants City of Memphis, Chief Cerelyn Davis in her official capacity, Sergeant J. Acred in his official capacity, Sergeant J. Boyd in his official capacity, Sergeant C. Winbush in his official capacity, Lobi Beasley in his official capacity, B. Cockman in his official capacity, and C. Beaty in his official capacity (collectively, “City Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed March 10, 2025. (ECF No. 29.) On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff Ladarrius Perry filed a Second Amended Complaint, with the Court’s leave. (ECF No. 40.) According to Perry, the Second Amended Complaint was necessary to correct the name of the one of the Defendants. (See ECF No. 37.) On April 16, 2025, the City Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which reiterates the arguments set forth in its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 48.) It is well-settled that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the initial pleading a nullity. See Heyward v. Cleveland Clinic Found.,

(6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Because the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is based on the pleading that has now been superseded, the City Defendants’ original motion to dismiss is now MOOT. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of August, 2025. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE