Russell v. Scott

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

DANNY RUSSELL, ) next friend to B.R. and ) next of kin to ) Daniel Jordan Russell, deceased, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) 1:25-cv-01100-STA-jay v. ) ) FRANKIE SCOTT, ) in his individual ) and official capacity; ) BLAKE JENKINS, ) in his individual ) and official capacity; ) JOHN DUNN ) in his individual capacity; ) MIRANDA GARNER ) in her individual capacity, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 27, 29.) In response, Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 35.) In light of the filing of the amended complaint, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot. See Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that the amended complaint supersedes all previous complaints and becomes the operative pleading)); see also Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (“Because the original complaint has been superseded and nullified, there is no longer a live dispute about the propriety or merit of the claims asserted therein; therefore, any motion to dismiss such claims is moot.”) IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: August 12, 2025