Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING 42 Plaintiff's Request to Strike; ORDER RESOLVING Plaintiff's 52 Objections; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 57 Motion to Stay, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/12/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK HAZELTINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
TO STRIKE
(ECF No. 42.)
ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS
(ECF No. 52.)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR STAY AS MOOT
(ECF No. 57.)

17
18
19
20

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

22

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with

23

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim: Excessive

24

force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Ian Young, Benjamin

25

Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith,

26

and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.)1

27
28

1

On August 21, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all remaining claims from this
action. (ECF No. 29.)
1

1

On September 24, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is

2

pending. (ECF No. 53.) On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for stay of the Court’s

3

ruling on the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff’s request for stay is now

4

before the Court.

5

II.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR STAY

6

Plaintiff requests a stay of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary

7

judgment pending determination of two issues: (1) Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendants’

8

Answers from the record as untimely, and (2) Plaintiff’s objections to the denial of Plaintiff’s

9

motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff argues that a ruling on the late filing of Defendants’

10

responsive pleadings could render Defendants’ admissions moot.

11

III.

12

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s two pending issues shall be resolved by this order, rendering his request for

13

stay moot.

14

A.

15

Motions to strike are generally disfavored and “should not be granted unless the matter

16

to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation . . . If there

17

is any doubt whether the portion to be stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court

18

should deny the motion.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057

19

(N.D.Cal. 2004) (internal citations omitted). “With a motion to strike, just as with a motion to

20

dismiss, the court should view the pleading in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

21

party.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. at 1057. “Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies

22

within the sound discretion of the district court.” Cruz v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 12–

23

00846, 2012 WL 2838957, at *2 (N.D.Cal. July 10, 2012) (citing see Whittlestone, Inc. v.

24

Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d at 973).

Request to Strike

25

Plaintiff requests the Court to strike Defendants’ Answers to the First Amended

26

Complaint as untimely. The Court finds no good cause to strike the Answers from the record.

27

Even assuming the Answers are untimely, no sanctions shall be imposed, because Defendants

28

were not required to file Answers to the First Amended Complaint.
2

1

“[T]he option to file an Answer to a First Amended Complaint lies with the defendant.”

2

Stanley Works v. Snydergeneral Corp., 781 F.Supp. 659, 664-665 (E.D.Cal. 1990) (citing

3

Wright, Miller & Kane, 6 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476, pp. 558-559 (1990). “When

4

an amended pleading does not add new parties, new claims, or significant new factual

5

allegations, courts are often willing to allow the previously filed response to the original

6

pleading [to] suffice.” Upek, Inc. v. Authentec, Inc., No. 10-424-JF PVT, 2010 WL 2681734,

7

at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2010), (quoting Justin Kraft & Kraft Piano Servs., LLC v. Arden, No.

8

CV. 07-487-PK, 2009 WL 73869, at *7 (D.Or. 2009) (quoting 3 Moore's Federal Practice §

9

15.17 (3d ed.2008))).

10

Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint proceeds with the same claims and defendants as

11

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, and Defendants’ Answers to the First Amended Complaint appear

12

identical to their Answers to the initial Complaint. (ECF Nos. 18-25, 34-41.) Here, the Court

13

finds that Defendants’ Answers to the initial Complaint suffice and therefore, Defendants were

14

not required to file Answers to the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request

15

to strike shall be denied.

16

B.

17

Plaintiff asserts that the Court has not addressed his “Objections to the denying of

18

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on the denial of the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum.”

19

(ECF No. 57 at 1:26-28.) However, as discussed below, the Court’s order of September 3,

20

2016 resolved this matter in its entirety, with prejudice.

Objections to Court Order

21

On July 29, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of

22

subpoenas. (ECF No. 48.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of

23

the July 29 order. (ECF No. 49.) On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the

24

motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 50.)

25

Plaintiff subsequently filed objections to the August 26 order. (ECF No. 52.) On

26

September 27, 2016, the Court issued an order addressing Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 54.)

27

The September 27 order advised Plaintiff that “[n]o further objections or motions for

28

reconsideration concerning Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoenas duces tecum shall
3

1

be considered by the Court.” (Id. at 3:7-9.) Thus, the matter of Plaintiff’s objections is

2

resolved in its entirety.

3

IV.

CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6
7

2016, is DENIED;
2.

8
9

Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendants’ Answers as untimely, filed on March 24,

Plaintiff’s objections, filed on September 9, 2016, are RESOLVED in their
entirety; and

3.

10

Plaintiff’s request for stay of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, filed on October 5, 2015, is DENIED as moot.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 12, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4