Apodaca v. Giles

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
Case No. 1:25-cv-00665-PAB-CYC Document 105 filed 12/17/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
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
Case No. 1:25-cv-00665-PAB-CYC Document 105 filed 12/17/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
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.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00665-PAB-CYC Document 105 filed 12/17/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3