Thompson v. Vidurria et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 38 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt of Court and GRANTING Defendants' 37 Request to Extend Time to File an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/29/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE THOMPSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
VIDURRIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01896-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION
[ECF Nos. 37, 38]

Plaintiff Tyrone Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for contempt of court and sanctions against the

20

Deputy Attorney General assigned to this action and Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. (ECF No.

21

35.)

22

Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion on October 23, 2015. (ECF No. 38.)

23

I.

24

DISCUSSION

25

A.

Motion To Strike

26

This action is proceeding against Defendants Vidurria and Martinez for deliberate indifference

27

to a serious medical need for failing to transport him to a medical appointment resulting in

28

exacerbation of Plaintiff’s respiratory pathologies.
1

1

Plaintiff seeks to Court to hold the attorneys in contempt and impose sanctions for obtaining

2

unauthorized discovery materials from the litigation coordinator at Prison in violation of Plaintiff’s

3

privacy rights. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory and

4

punitive damages.

5

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), upon motion or sua sponte, a court may

6

strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

7

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the

8

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those

9

issues prior to trial.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010).

10

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

11

clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation … If there is any doubt whether

12

the portion to be stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court should deny the motion.”

13

Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI Inc., 352 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (internal citations

14

omitted). Thus, motions to strike should only be granted if “the matter has no logical connection to

15

the controversy at issue and may prejudice one or more of the parties to the suit.” Rivers v. County of

16

Marin, No. C 05-4251, 2006 WL 581096, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Where the moving party cannot

17

adequately demonstrate such prejudice, courts frequently deny motions to strike “even though the

18

offending matter literally [was] within one or more of the categories set forth in Rule 12(f). Id.

19

When a document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for any

20

purpose. “With a motion to strike, just as with a motion to dismiss, the court should view the pleading

21

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Platte Anchor Bolt Inc., 352 F.Supp.2d at 1057.

22

A decision to strike material from the pleadings is vested to the sound discretion of the trial court.

23

Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2000).

24

Defendants have not established that “the matter has no logical connection to the controversy

25

at issue and may prejudice one or more of the parties to the suit.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc., 352

26

F.Supp.2d at 1057. Plaintiff’s motion relates to discovery obtained in this action, and the Court finds

27

that striking the motion outright would be improper. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike

28

Plaintiff’s motion to contempt of court and sanctions is DENIED.
2

1

B.

2

Defendants submit that if their motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion for contempt and sanctions,

3

they be granted an extension of the deadline to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion.
On the basis of good cause, Defendants have fifteen days from the date of service of this order

4
5

Motion for Extension of Time

to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion.

6

II.

7

ORDER

8

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion for contempt of court and sanctions is
DENIED; and

10
2.

11

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, and Defendants have

12

fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order to file a response to Plaintiff’s

13

motion.

14

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

October 29, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3