Walker v. CA Dept of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 52 Motion to strike signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/24/14. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

K. JAMEL WALKER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 09-cv-0569 WBS KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer to

20

the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff’s motion is brought pursuant to Federal

21

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.

22

Plaintiff moves to strike defendants’ answer on grounds that there is insufficient evidence

23

to support the affirmative defenses, the answer does not give plaintiff fair notice of the

24

affirmative defenses alleged, and the affirmative defenses are immaterial and redundant. Plaintiff

25

specifically challenges the affirmative defenses of claim or issue preclusion, failure to exhaust

26

administrative remedies, failure to comply with the California Government Claims Act, failure to

27

mitigate damages, plaintiff engaged in conduct contributing to his damages, and the statute of

28

limitations.
1

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may strike

1
2

from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

3

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

4

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

5

those issues prior to trial.” SidneyVinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.

6

1983). However, Rule 12(f) motions are “generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited

7

importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.”

8

Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1152 (C.D.Cal. 2003).

9

The court has broad discretion in disposing of motions to strike. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,

10

984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). The court

11

construes motions to strike in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and will deny the

12

motion if the challenged defenses have “‘any relation to the subject matter of the controversy,

13

could be held to in any manner defeat the plaintiff's claim, or if it fairly presents any question of

14

fact or law.’” United States v. 45.43 Acres of Land Situate in Ada County, Idaho, 2009 WL

15

1605127 at *2 (D.Idaho June 4, 2009) (quoting United States v. Articles of Food ... Clover Club

16

Potato Chips, 67 F.R.D. 419, 421 (D.Idaho 1975)).
After reviewing defendants’ answer (ECF No. 50), the court finds that plaintiff’s motion

17
18

to strike is not well supported. The affirmative defenses in defendants’ answer are related to

19

plaintiff’s claims and could be held to defeat plaintiff’s claims.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 52) is

20
21

denied.

22

Dated: July 24, 2014

23
24

Walk569.stri

25
26
27
28
2