Davis v. Whitney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ISAAC DAVIS, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-00360-KD-N
)
DAVID WHITNEY, 	)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
The 	Plaintiff, 	Isaac 	Davis—who 	is 	proceeding 	without 	counsel 	(pro
se)—commenced this civil action by filing a complaint with the Circuit Court of
Mobile County, Alabama on August 22, 2024. See (Doc# 1-1, PageID.7-16); Ala. R.
Civ. P. 3. The Defendant, David Whitney, removed the action to this Court under
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), then filed and served a motion to dismiss the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and alternatively a motion for a more definite
statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) (Doc# 3). The assigned
District Judge has referred said motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (10/4/2024 electronic
reference notation).
Noting that federal pleading standards did not apply to the complaint
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 13 Filed 04/18/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

when it was filed in state court,1 the undersigned ordered Davis to file an
amended complaint conforming with federal pleading standards by May 14, 2025.
(See Doc# 11). Davis filed and served his amended complaint on April 17, 2025
(Doc# 12).
As a result of the amendment, the Rule 12 motion filed October 4, 2024
(Doc# 3), is now directed at a pleading that is no longer operative. See Pintando v.
Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(“As a general matter, ‘[a]n amended pleading supersedes the former pleading;
the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of
the pleader's averments against his adversary.’” (quoting Dresdner Bank AG,
Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210,
1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted))); Fritz v. Standard Sec.
Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Under the Federal
Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Accordingly, the
Rule 12 motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement filed October 4, 2024
(Doc# 3) is MOOT.2 Whitney may, of course, re-raise his arguments in a new
1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1) (“The[ Federal R]ules [of Civil Procedure] apply to a
civil action after it is removed from a state court.”).
2 See Florence v. Stanback, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1120-21 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
(holding that magistrate judge did not exceed jurisdiction by denying a motion to
dismiss without prejudice to the defendants’ ability to raise the same issues in
another motion).
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 13 Filed 04/18/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

Rule 	12 	motion 	directed 	at 	the 	first 	amended 	complaint, 	if 	appropriate. 3
Whitney’s response to the first amended complaint (Doc# 12) shall be filed and
served no later than MAY 2, 2025.
DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of April 2025.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 The undersigned expresses no opinion herein on the merits of those arguments.
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 13 Filed 04/18/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>