Akther v. Richard A. Hayes
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:26-cv-07139
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Akther v. Hayes, Judge Hixson terminated Akther's motion for leave to amend her complaint, ruling she already had the right to amend without court permission.
Plaintiffs in federal civil cases who file motions seeking court permission to amend their complaints when no responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion has yet been filed by the opposing party — such plaintiffs already have an automatic right to amend once and do not need to file such a motion.
What happened
In Akther v. Hayes (Case No. 26-cv-07139-TSH, N.D. Cal.), plaintiff Hasna Akther filed a motion asking the court for permission to file a first amended complaint against defendant Richard A. Hayes. Before the court ruled on that motion, it examined whether such permission was actually necessary.
The court found that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) — the federal rule governing amendments to pleadings — a party is automatically allowed to amend her complaint once without needing the court's approval, as long as the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss. Because Hayes had not appeared in the case, filed a responsive pleading, or filed any qualifying motion, Akther already had the automatic right to file her amended complaint without asking the court.
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Akther's motion, since no court permission was needed. The court instructed Akther to file her first amended complaint as a separate docket entry and to serve it on Hayes according to the applicable federal rules. Once filed, the amended complaint will replace the original and become the governing document in the case.
The detailed version
- Akther v. Richard A. Hayes · No. 3:26-cv-07139
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 26, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Hasna Akther filed a motion for leave (i.e., court permission) to file a first amended complaint against defendant Richard A. Hayes. The motion was docketed at ECF No. 6. At the time of the order, Akther had not previously amended her complaint, and Hayes had neither appeared in the case nor filed a responsive pleading or a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (the rule governing motions to dismiss and related threshold defenses).
Legal Standard: Amendments as a Matter of Course
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) provides that a party may amend a pleading once "as a matter of course" — meaning without needing court permission — within 21 days after that pleading is served, or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a qualifying Rule 12 motion. The court cited Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) for the principle that an amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.
Ruling
Judge Hixson concluded that because Akther had not previously amended her complaint and Hayes had not filed any responsive pleading or qualifying Rule 12 motion, Akther retained the automatic right to amend under Rule 15(a)(1) and did not need the court's permission. Accordingly, the court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Akther's motion.
The court further instructed Akther to file her first amended complaint as a separate docket entry, and to serve it on Hayes in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Once filed, the amended complaint will supersede the original and become the operative (controlling) pleading in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.