Qazi v. USA

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-01481-PAB-CYC
SHEHERYAR ALAM QAZI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Leave of The Court to Amend
Complaint (“Motion to Amend Complaint”), ECF No. 35, and the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 41 (“Motion to Dismiss”), ECF No.
28. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 35,
and respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED as MOOT AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ECF No. 28.
The plaintiff filed this action on May 23, 2024, ECF No. 1, and received leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on May 30, 2024. ECF No. 6. On December 3, 2024, the defendant filed its
Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 28. One month later, the plaintiff filed an amended prisoner
complaint, which this Court ordered stricken for not complying with the local rules of this Court.
ECF Nos. 32-33.
On February 14, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 35.
Almost two weeks later, the defendant filed its response to the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Case No. 1:24-cv-01481-PAB-CYC Document 41 filed 03/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
Complaint, specifying that it does not oppose the plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 40. Without
awaiting a reply from the plaintiff, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), and 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. 35.
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 RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED AS MOOT AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ECF No. 28.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF
No. 35, is GRANTED. In light of that decision, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that
the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 28, be DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.1
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of March, 2025, at Denver, Colorado.
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
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.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01481-PAB-CYC Document 41 filed 03/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
BY THE COURT:
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-01481-PAB-CYC Document 41 filed 03/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3