Stanley Barfield v. Michael Shane Howard, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

STANLEY BARFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-487 (MTT) ) MICHAEL SHANE HOWARD, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER On March 20, 2026, Barfield moved for leave to amend his complaint. ECF 31. Finding his proposed amended complaint deficient, the Court ordered Barfield to submit a revised proposed amended complaint. ECF 40. On April 24, 2026, Barfield filed his revised proposed amended complaint, which addressed the deficiencies raised by the Court. ECF 43. Barfield’s motion for leave to amend (ECF 31) is, therefore, GRANTED. Barfield’s amended complaint (ECF 43) shall be the operative complaint in this action. In his amended complaint, Barfield states he “is no longer pursuing claims against Defendants David Raley [and] Washington County, Georgia.” ECF 43 at 1 n.1. Thus, Defendants Raley and Washington County are DISMISSED. Because Barfield’s amended complaint supersedes his original complaint, the Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 20; 29) and motion to stay (ECF 21) are TERMINATED as moot. See Southern Pilot Ins. Co. v. CECS, Inc, 15 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1287 n.1 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and thus renders moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint.”); Malowney v. Federal Collection Deposit Group, 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (“An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint.”). If the Defendants wish to file a second motion to dismiss, they SHALL do so by May 27, 2026.

SO ORDERED, this 6th day of May, 2026.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT