Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-cv-03035 (CJN)
01-20-2023
ROBERT M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN J. GRUENBERG, Acting Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CARL J. NICHOLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Miller's Motion for Leave to Amend his complaint, ECF No. 56, and his First and Second Motions for Sanctions, ECF Nos. 30 and 41. Also pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the original complaint, ECF No. 22.
In light of Miller's pro se status, the Court grants Miller leave to amend his complaint. See Moore v. USAID, 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Pro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in . . . pleadings.”). Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint is accordingly denied as moot. See Johnson v. D.C., Civ. A. No. 13-1445 (JDB), 2015 WL 4396698, at *5 (D.D.C. July 17, 2015) (denying as moot the defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint because an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint). Finally, the Court denies Miller's motions for sanctions because Defendants' conduct does not constitute a violation of Rule 11. See Long v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 207 F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.D.C. 2002) (“The Court has discretion to decide whether a Rule 11 violation has occurred and what sanctions should be imposed if there has been a violation.”).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 56, is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 55, shall be docketed as the operative complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 22, is DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on or before February 24, 2023; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's First and Second Motions for Sanctions, ECF Nos. 30 and 41, are DENIED.