Carter v. Del City City of et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEMETRIZE CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DEL CITY, OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-958-D
ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant City of Del City and
Supporting Brief [Doc. No. 29] and Defendant Shawn Hogue’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 32]. In response, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 37], as authorized by F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(a)(2). Upon consideration,
the Court finds that Defendants’ motions to dismiss, directed at Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 16], are moot. See Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517
(10th Cir. 1991) (amended complaint supersedes the original); see also Predator Int’l, Inc.
v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2015).
The Court also addresses Defendant School District’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief
in Support [Doc. No. 25]. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal
Without Prejudice dismissing his claims against Defendant Independent School District
No. 4 of Oklahoma County, a/k/a Choctaw-Nicoma Park Schools [Doc. No. 33].
Accordingly, Defendant School District’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc.
No. 25] is moot.
Case 5:25-cv-00958-D Document 47 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant City of
Del City and Supporting Brief [Doc. No. 29], Defendant Shawn Hogue’s Partial Motion to
Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 32], and Defendant School District’s Motion to
Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25] are DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 rd day of April, 2026.
TIMO~ HY	¼ 	E 	~I~~J:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00958-D Document 47 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 2