MARTIN C. CARLSON, Magistrate Judge.
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff, who was initially proceeding pro se, commenced this action by a complaint. (Doc. 1.) The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the pro se complaint. (Doc. 12.) In response, the plaintiff moved to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) We granted this motion and dismissed the defendant's motion to dismiss as moot in light of the filing of the amended complaint. (Doc. 15.) The defendants then filed a second motion to dismiss which, inter alia, raised issues of exhaustion of administrative remedies as a defense. (Doc. 17.) This second motion to dismiss has apparently inspired another effort by the plaintiff to further amend the amended complaint to address these exhaustion questions. (Doc. 18.) We permitted Andrews to file this amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss this, the plaintiff's second amended complaint. (Doc.20.) Andrews did not respond to this motion to dismiss. Instead, she filed yet another motion to amend her complaint. (Doc. 22.) Attached to this motion was a proposed third amended complaint. (Doc. 22-2.)
We will permit this one, final amendment of the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 22) is GRANTED and the proposed amended complaint, (Doc. 22-2), will be lodged by the clerk as the third amended complaint in this matter.
2. We believe that this development has substantive significance for the parties with respect to the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the defendants since, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of any prior complaint, effectively invalidating the prior complaint.
3. However, this leave to file a second amended complaint is granted without prejudice to the assertion of any defenses or dispositive motions that the defendants may believe are appropriate with respect to the second amended complaint.
SO ORDERED.