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
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?