Reek v. Serier
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-01864
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Reek v. Boyer, Judge Wright denied Kevin J. Reek’s partial-summary-judgment motion without prejudice because he later amended his complaint.
Kevin J. Reek’s motion was denied without prejudice, leaving the claims under the amended complaint unresolved; the defendants were not required to obtain judgment on the claims at this stage.
What happened
Kevin J. Reek sued Amy Boyer and others over alleged torts and constitutional violations arising from a September 2017 incident. He filed a motion asking the court to grant him judgment on part of his claims.
After Reek filed that motion, the court allowed him to amend his complaint. The amended complaint replaced the original complaint, so the motion addressed a pleading that was no longer operative. The court also said that seeking summary judgment on the amended complaint was premature because discovery had not begun.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied Reek’s motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Reek v. Serier · No. 0:20-cv-01864
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Oct. 6, 2021
Background
Kevin J. Reek, who is incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City, Minnesota, brought this action against defendants. The case began in Ramsey County District Court and was later transferred to this federal court after the defendants removed it in August 2020. The complaint alleged various tort and constitutional claims arising from an alleged September 2017 assault by Richard Thomas Joles at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center.
Reek filed a motion for partial summary judgment on August 2, 2021. A magistrate judge later granted Reek’s motion to amend the complaint, and the amended complaint changed the claims and factual allegations and removed several defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and removes the original pleading’s legal effect. Because Reek’s summary-judgment motion addressed the original complaint, the court concluded that the motion was moot. In other words, the motion no longer presented a live request for a ruling on the operative pleading.
The court also declined to treat the motion as addressing the amended complaint. Discovery had not begun, and the case was still at an early stage, so a summary-judgment motion concerning the amended complaint would be premature.
Disposition
The court ordered that Reek’s motion for partial summary judgment, docket entry 62, was denied without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of Reek’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.