Davis v. Whitney

• Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
• Decided: April 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00360
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ISAAC DAVIS, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-00360-KD-N ) DAVID WHITNEY, ) Defendant. ) ORDER The Plaintiff, Isaac Davis—who is proceeding without counsel (pro se)—commenced this civil action by filing a complaint with the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama on August 22, 2024. See (Doc# 1-1, PageID.7-16); Ala. R. Civ. P. 3. The Defendant, David Whitney, removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), then filed and served a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and alternatively a motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) (Doc# 3). The assigned District Judge has referred said motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (10/4/2024 electronic reference notation). Noting that federal pleading standards did not apply to the complaint when it was filed in state court,1 the undersigned ordered Davis to file an amended complaint conforming with federal pleading standards by May 14, 2025.

(See Doc# 11). Davis filed and served his amended complaint on April 17, 2025 (Doc# 12). As a result of the amendment, the Rule 12 motion filed October 4, 2024 (Doc# 3), is now directed at a pleading that is no longer operative. See Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

(“As a general matter, ‘[a]n amended pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader's averments against his adversary.’” (quoting Dresdner Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted))); Fritz v. Standard Sec.

Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Accordingly, the Rule 12 motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement filed October 4, 2024 (Doc# 3) is MOOT.2 Whitney may, of course, re-raise his arguments in a new

1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1) (“The[ Federal R]ules [of Civil Procedure] apply to a civil action after it is removed from a state court.”).

2 See Florence v. Stanback, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1120-21 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (holding that magistrate judge did not exceed jurisdiction by denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice to the defendants’ ability to raise the same issues in another motion). Rule 12 motion directed at the first amended complaint, if appropriate.3 Whitney’s response to the first amended complaint (Doc# 12) shall be filed and

served no later than MAY 2, 2025. DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of April 2025. /s/ Katherine P. Nelson KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3 The undersigned expresses no opinion herein on the merits of those arguments.