Steven Angelo Apodaca v. Fagrelius Clark, Stephen Giles, and Isom

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00665
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 25-cv-00665-PAB-CYC

STEVEN ANGELO APODACA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAGRELIUS CLARK, STEPHEN GILES, and ISOM,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________________ Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion Requesting to Amend Complaint (“Motion to Amend Complaint”), ECF No. 98, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), ECF No. 44, and defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF No. 70. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 98, DENIES as moot the defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF No. 70, and respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44, be DENIED as moot and without prejudice. The plaintiff filed this action on February 28, 2025, ECF No. 1, and received leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 3, 2025. ECF No. 4. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), a magistrate judge reviewed the complaint and ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 5, which the plaintiff did, ECF No. 9. On June 23, 2025, the defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 44. On September 23, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to stay discovery, asserting that the Court should grant their motion pending the resolution of their pending motion to dismiss. ECF No. 70 at 1. On December 1, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 98. On The defendants then filed a notice alerting the Court that they do not oppose the plaintiff’s

motion. ECF No. 103. Because the Motion to Amend Complaint is unopposed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court GRANTS the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 98. The Clerk’s office is ORDERED to docket ECF No. 98 at 5–23 as plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The defendants shall file their response on or before January 7, 2026. The filing of an amended complaint moots any motions to dismiss aimed at a now- inoperative pleading. Kibel v. Williams, No. 19-CV-00754-PAB-NYW, 2019 WL 2619915, at *1 (D. Colo. May 30, 2019), recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2616548 (D. Colo. June 26, 2019) (citing Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006)). Given this, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS1 that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44, be DENIED as moot and without prejudice.

Because the defendants moved to stay the case pending a resolution of the motion to dismiss, which the Court has recommended to be denied as moot, the Court ORDERS that the Motion to Stay, ECF No. 70, also be DENIED as moot.

1 Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party’s failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 2025, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

Cyrus Y. Chung United States Magistrate Judge

the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). Finally, all parties must consult and comply with the District Judge’s practice standards for any specific requirements concerning the filing and briefing of objections.