ORDER

DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motions for leave to amend (Docs. 26 and 28). Also before the court is plaintiff's motion for issuance of a subpoena form (Doc. 18).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all other situations, a party's pleadings may only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

In this case, defendant Sarabia filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on February 5, 2019. Plaintiff filed his motions for leave to amend on February 13, 2019, and February 15, 2019. A first amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2019. Because plaintiff filed his first amended complaint within 21 days of the date defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was filed, plaintiff's first amended complaint must be considered filed as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Leave of court is, therefore, unnecessary and plaintiff's motions will be denied for this reason.

This action now proceeds on plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on February 21, 2019 (Doc. 29). Because defendant's motion to dismiss challenges a pleading which has been superseded by amendment, his motion will be disregarded without prejudice to defendant's right to challenge plaintiff's first amended complaint.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As with the original complaint, in the first amended complaint plaintiff claims defendants used excessive force against him during the course of an arrest following a high-speed car chase. The first amended complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

Finally, plaintiff's motion or issuance of a subpoena form will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend (Docs. 26 and 28) are denied as unnecessary;

2. This action proceeds on plaintiff's first amended complaint filed on February 21, 2019;

3. The court authorizes service of the first amended complaint on the following defendant(s):

4. The court's February 28, 2019, order directing defendant Rodriguez' to file a response to the original complaint (Doc. 25) is vacated;

5. Defendants shall file a response to the first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order;

6. Defendant Sarabia's motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) is disregarded and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the matter as a pending motion;

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 29) on defendants; and

8. Plaintiff's motion or issuance of a subpoena form (Doc. 18) is granted and the Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to plaintiff a blank subpoena form.