Holland v. Jersey Shore Area Joint Water Authority et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DION STORM HOLLAND, 	: 	Civil No. 4:25-CV-1323
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	(Judge Neary)
v. 	:
:
JERSEY SHORE AREA JOINT 	:
WATER AUTHORITY, et al., 	: 	(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case. The defendants have filed various
motions to dismiss the pro se complaint. (Docs, 18, 19). In response, Holland has now
moved to further amend this complaint. (Doc. 70). The defendants have indicated that
they do not intend to oppose this motion.
We will permit the filing of this amended complaint since Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs amendment of pleadings strongly
favors amendment of pleadings and provides that such leave to amend should be
liberally granted “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Case 4:25-cv-01323-KMN Document 71 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1. 	The plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 70) is GRANTED and the
proposed amended complaint, (Doc. 70-1), will be lodged by the clerk as the second
amended complaint in this matter.
2. 	We believe that this development has substantive significance for the
parties with respect to the pending motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the
defendants since, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of any
prior complaint, 	effectively 	invalidating 	the prior complaint. 	Crysen/Montenay
Energy Co. v. Shell Oil Co. (In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co.), 226 F.3d 160, 162
(2d Cir. 2000) (“[A]n amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders
it of no legal effect”); see 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice & Procedure 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (“A pleading that has been amended
‘supersedes the pleading it modifies’. Once an amended pleading is interposed, the
original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.”). Therefore, since the
amended complaint is now a legal nullity the defendants’ motions to dismiss the prior
complaint, (Docs. 18, 19), are DISMISSED as moot.
3. 	However, this leave to file an amended complaint is granted without
prejudice to the assertion of any defenses or dispositive motions that the defendants
may believe are appropriate with respect to the second amended complaint.
Case 4:25-cv-01323-KMN Document 71 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED, this 21 st day of January 2026.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01323-KMN Document 71 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3