Russell v. Scott
This text of Russell v. Scott (Russell v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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see also Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (“Because the original complaint has been superseded and nullified, there is no longer a live dispute about the propriety or merit of the claims asserted therein; therefore, any motion to dismiss such claims is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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Russell v. Scott, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-scott-tnwd-2025.