Demetrize Carter v. City of Del City, Oklahoma, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DEMETRIZE CARTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-958-D ) CITY OF DEL CITY, OKLAHOMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant City of Del City and Supporting Brief [Doc. No. 29] and Defendant Shawn Hogue’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 32]. In response, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 37], as authorized by FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Upon consideration, the Court finds that Defendants’ motions to dismiss, directed at Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 16], are moot. See Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (amended complaint supersedes the original); see also Predator Int’l, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2015). The Court also addresses Defendant School District’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25]. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice dismissing his claims against Defendant Independent School District No. 4 of Oklahoma County, a/k/a Choctaw-Nicoma Park Schools [Doc. No. 33]. Accordingly, Defendant School District’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25] is moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant City of Del City and Supporting Brief [Doc. No. 29], Defendant Shawn Hogue’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 32], and Defendant School District’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25] are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23" day of April, 2026.

In hi-tuli TIMOTHY D! DeGIUSTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE