Dutcher #067784 v. Ryan
ORDER denying 156 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer Filed for RNS Shields. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 2/13/18. (DXD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Robert William Dutcher,
No. CV-15-01079-PHX-ROS (ESW)
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Answer Filed for RNS
Shields” (Doc. 156) and “Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s ‘Motion to
Strke Answer Filed For RNS Shields” [Doc. 156]” (Doc. 158). Plaintiff requests that the
Court strike Defendant Shields Answer (Doc. 48) to his Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 40) on the basis of the Court’s purported lack of personal jurisdiction over
Defendant Shields. Plaintiff concludes that Defendant Shields’ Answer must be stricken
because (i) her Declaration (Doc. 137-1 at 2-9) does not address all allegations set forth
in the Second Amended Complaint and (ii) Plaintiff does not have a waiver of service as
to Defendant Shields.
A Waiver of the Service of Summons as to Defendant Shields was filed on August
4, 2016 (Doc. 45 at 2). Defense counsel accepted service of process for Defendant
Shields. In addition, Defendant Shields does not contest in her Answer that she was
“employed as a Registered Nurse Supervisor for Corizon at the ASPC-Eyman facility,”
nor does she allege a lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive motion or her Answer
(Doc. 48 ). Plaintiff himself alleges in his Second Amended Complaint that the Court has
jurisdiction to hear his claims against Defendant Shields (Doc. 40 at 1, 15, 16-18, 26).
Finally, simply noting that Defendant Shields’ Declaration is factually deficient is not a
ground for the Court to strike Defendant Shields’ Answer.
“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act . . . on motion made by
a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21
days after being served with the pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (2). Plaintiff’s Motion
(Doc. 156) was filed more than one year after the filing of Defendant Shield’s Answer.
Defendant Shields’ Answer is not insufficient, nor does it contain redundant, immaterial,
impertinent or scandalous matters. Because Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely and lacks a
meritorious basis, the Motion (Doc. 156) will be denied.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer Filed for RNS
Shields (Doc. 156).
Dated this 13th day of February, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?