Danial Ray Adair and Daniel Scot Nicolds v. Ronny D. Hays, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00843
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

DANIAL RAY ADAIR and DANIEL SCOT NICOLDS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civ. No. 25-843 GJF/DLM

RONNY D. HAYS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Defendants Hughes and Bugayong [Dkt. No. 14]. Since Defendants Hughes and Bugayong filed their motion, Plaintiffs have timely filed their Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 23]. An “amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect.” Franklin v. Kan. Dep't of Corr., 160 F. App’x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991)); see also Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991). Because Plaintiffs’ original complaint has been superseded and nullified, there is no longer a live dispute about the merit of the claims asserted therein. As a result, the motion to dismiss such claims is moot. Cardona v. ENMUR, 2:25cv438 KWR/GJF, 2025 WL 1869234 at *1 (D.N.M. July 7, 2025) (quoting Brumfiel v. U.S. Bank, 2013 WL 12246738, at *1 (D. Colo. May 16, 2013)). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Defendants Hughes and Bugayong [Dkt. No. 14] is DENIED AS MOOT. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Presiding by Consent