Rhodes v. Robinson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that, “when a plaintiff 7 files an amended complaint, ‘[t]he amended complaint super[s]edes the original, the latter 8 being treated thereafter as non-existent’”
• finding that the 26 amended complaint “supercedes the original” and the original complaint is “treated thereafter as non-existent”
• stating that as a general rule an amended complaint supersedes “the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent”
• explaining that “[a]s a general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, ‘[t]he amended complaint super[s]edes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent’”
• explaining that when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it supersedes the original, and nothing in the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement creates an exception to this rule
• noting that “[a]s a general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended 4 complaint, ‘the amended complaint super[s]edes the original, the latter being 5 treated thereafter as non-existent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).