Arceo v. DVI, et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/01/16 partially granting 39 Motion to Strike. Paragraphs 5-8, 10-12, 16-20, 22-53, 62-67, 69, 71-73, 75-84, 86-96, 100 and 103 are stricken from plaintiffs third amended complaint 27 . Defendants Surjick, Kong, McHugh and Savage shall file a responsive pleading within twenty-one days from the date of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY ARCEO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P

v.

ORDER

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is committed to a state hospital under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act

18

(“SVPA”). He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. On July 18, 2016, defendants filed a motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s third

20

amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
Rule 12(f) provides that:

21
22
23

The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court
may act:

24

(1) on its own; or

25

(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the
pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being
served with the pleading.

26
27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

28

////
1

1

Pursuant to the district court’s May 5, 2016 and November 23, 2016 orders, this action

2

proceeds on plaintiff’s retaliation claims against defendants Surjick, Kong, and McHugh for their

3

actions in February of 2012, and defendant Savage based on his actions in September of 2012.

4

This court’s screening order contemplated that defendants Surjick, Kong, McHugh and Savage

5

would only respond to plaintiff’s allegations addressed to his retaliation claims against such

6

defendants. Therefore, defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 5-8, 10-12, 16-20, 22-53, 62-67,

7

69, 71-73, 75-84, 86-96, 100 and 103 is granted. Plaintiff’s paragraphs 97-99 contain his legal

8

arguments concerning the alleged retaliation by these remaining defendants, which the court will

9

not strike, but defendants are not required to address paragraphs 97-99 in their responsive

10

pleading.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 39) is partially granted;

13

2. Paragraphs 5-8, 10-12, 16-20, 22-53, 62-67, 69, 71-73, 75-84, 86-96, 100 and 103 are

14
15

stricken from plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 27); and
3. Defendants Surjick, Kong, McHugh and Savage shall file a responsive pleading within

16

twenty-one days from the date of this order.

17

Dated: December 1, 2016

18
19
20
21

/arce2396.str

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2