10th Cir.

Sholes v. McIntyre, et al.

June 23, 2026 ·1:24-CV-01664-STV ·Panel Decision · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal as moot after the district court granted the plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The court held that the new pleading superseded the Third Amended Complaint, which was the basis for the original qualified immunity appeal.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:03

Background

This appeal arose from a district court order denying the defendants’ motion for qualified immunity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twelve point b sub six. The appeal concerned claims set out in the plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. The parties had previously agreed that if the district court allowed the plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, the appeal would become moot.

The court’s reasoning

The court noted that on May fifth, two thousand and twenty-six, it remanded the matter to the district court to decide whether the plaintiff could file a Fourth Amended Complaint. On June twenty-third, two thousand and twenty-six, the district court granted the plaintiff leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint. The court cited Royal Canin, United States of America, Inc. versus Wullschleger, stating that when a petition is amended, the cause proceeds on the amended petition and the original pleading no longer performs any function. Because the Fourth Amended Complaint entirely superseded the Third Amended Complaint, the question of whether the defendants plausibly violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Third Amended Complaint was moot.

What it means going forward

The dismissal ends the appellate review of the qualified immunity denial based on the Third Amended Complaint. The case returns to the district court to proceed on the Fourth Amended Complaint.