- 8 - Petitioner, on April 22, 2004, filed his Bivens action amended complaint, in which he named as defendants nine individuals with whom he had worked or who had been involved with the audit of his 1999 Federal income tax return.5 The amended complaint alleged violations of sections 6103 and 7605 and his civil rights. On December 14, 2004, the District Court issued an order and a judgment dismissing petitioner’s case. It concluded that, for summary judgment purposes, while petitioner had sufficiently alleged violations of his constitutional rights by defendants in 5Petitioner’s amended complaint did not list the United States, the Department of the Treasury, or the IRS as a defendant. In n.1 in the Appendix To Individual Defendant’s Dispositive Motion, filed with the District Court, the nine named individual defendants argued that by operation of Lizcano’s amended complaint, the Treasury Department has been dismissed from this action. 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, MARY K. KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (2d ed. 1990) (reasoning that an amended pleading supersedes the original, i.e., the original is of no legal effect); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (same); see also Campbell v. Hoffman, 151 F.R.D. 682, 684 (D. Kan. 1993) (holding that the plaintiff’s amended complaint effected the dismissal of one of the defendants from the lawsuit); 8 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 41.21[2] (3d ed. 2002) (reasoning that an amended complaint is the appropriate mechanism for eliminating an issue, or one or more but less than all of several claims). This Court notes that the District Court’s order dismissing petitioner’s case, as well as its judgment, both discussed infra, included the United States, the Department of the Treasury, and the IRS as defendants in the caption.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008