David Estrada v. Vanderpoel et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses be Granted in Part and Denied in Part signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/19/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-00673-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff,
v.
J. VANDERPOEL, et al.,,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BE GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
(Doc. No. 30.)

17
18
19

David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

21

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On June 29, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses be granted in part

24

and denied in part. (Doc. No. 30.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties

25

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty days of service.

26

(Id.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
1

1
2

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Defendants’ answer listed five affirmative defenses, all of which plaintiff moved to strike.

3

(Doc. No. 21, 27.) Defendants did not object to striking the fifth affirmative defense, which

4

“reserved their right to assert additional affirmative defenses to the extent such defenses were

5

applicable.” (Doc. No. 28 at 7.) With respect to the remaining affirmative defenses, plaintiff has

6

made no showing that the defenses failed to provide “‘the fair notice’ required by the pleading

7

standards ….” Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 5

8

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1274 (3d ed. 1998)).

9

Instead, plaintiff’s motion to strike those affirmative defenses is based solely on arguments as to

10

their substance rather than challenges to the sufficiency of the pleading. As the magistrate judge

11

correctly noted, plaintiff will have the opportunity to contest the validity of these affirmative

12

defenses in later stages of this litigation.

13

Accordingly,

14

1. The June 29, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 30) are adopted in full;

15

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is granted as to defendants’ fifth affirmative defense and

16
17
18

denied as to affirmative defenses one through four set forth in the answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2