McIntyre v. City of Rochester
| Decision Date | 09 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | 16–CV–6408L |
| Citation | 228 F.Supp.3d 241 |
| Parties | Jessie MCINTYRE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Leland T. Williams, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.
Spencer L. Ash, City of Rochester, Law Department, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jessie McIntyre brought this action pro se in June 2016, assertying claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Rochester ("City") and two "John Doe" defendants. After the City moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 5), plaintiff, through newly-retained counsel, filed an amended complaint (Dkt. # 8). The City has not moved against or otherwise responded to the amended complaint.
The City's motion to dismiss is based on its arguments that the original complaint did not identify any policy or custom that could give rise to municipal liability, and that plaintiff had not alleged any facts in support of his "negligent training" claim. See Dkt. # 5–1 at 2–3.
At least on its face, the amended complaint appears to address those alleged defects. It sets forth factual allegations regarding the City's policies and customs, and the City's allegedly inadequate training of the police officers involved in the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims. See Dkt. # 8 ¶¶ 4, 19–25.1
The Court finds, therefore, that the filing of the amended complaint moots the motion to dismiss the original complaint. See , e.g. , American Med. Distributors, Inc. v. Saturna Group Chartered Accountants, LLP , No. 15–cv–6532, 2016 WL 3920224, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016) (). The motion to dismiss is therefore denied as moot.
Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 5) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 The amended complaint also asserts claims against three named individuals.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Stephen Einstein & Assocs., P.C.
..., 585 F.Supp.2d 341, 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation omitted and alterations in original); see also McIntyre v. City of Rochester , 228 F.Supp.3d 241, 242 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[T]he filing of the amended complaint moots the motion to dismiss the original complaint."). In this case, bec......
-
Melton Props., LLC. v. Ill. Cent. R.R.
...complaint "on its face" fails to address the alleged defects identified in the motion to dismiss. See McIntyre v. City of Rochester, 228 F. Supp. 3d 241, 241-42 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (finding motion to dismiss moot where "[a]t least on its face, the amended complaint appears to address those alle......
-
Everdry Mktg. & Mgmt., Inc. v. Delves & Giufre Enters., Inc.
..., 585 F.Supp.2d 341, 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation omitted and alterations in original); see also McIntyre v. City of Rochester , 228 F.Supp.3d 241, 242 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[T]he filing of the amended complaint moots the motion to dismiss the original complaint."). In this case, bec......
-
Israel v. Bradt
...did not show that the results of the drug test were untrustworthy, much less that they were so unreliable that plaintiff's due process 228 F.Supp.3d 241rights were violated. There is simply no basis here for a due process claim.CONCLUSIONDefendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 6) is......