James v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/8/13 denying 47 Motion to strike. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIAM JAMES,

11

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-0664 MCE DAD P

12

vs.

13

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s “motion to strike

18

an insufficient answer” by which he seeks to strike defendants’ second, third, fourth, fifth,

19

seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses.

20

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to “strike

21

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

22

matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In this case, the court finds no basis to conclude that defendants’

23

affirmative defenses are improperly pled or legally insufficient. “The key to determining the

24

sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives the plaintiff fair notice of the

25

defense.” Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting

26

Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979)). See also 5 Wright & Miller,
1

1

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1274 (3d ed. 1998) (pleading affirmative defenses). Generally

2

speaking, fair notice requires only that the defendants plead the nature of their affirmative

3

defense. See Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 827. It does not require a detailed statement of facts in

4

support thereof. Here, plaintiff asks the court to grant his motion to strike based on his bald

5

assertion that defendants’ affirmative defenses amount to conclusory allegations. As the party

6

moving to strike the affirmative defenses, plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that the

7

answer fails to provide him with fair notice of defendants’ affirmative defenses.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc.
No. 47) is denied.
DATED: July 8, 2013.

11
12
13
14

DAD:9
jame0664.12f

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2