Washington v. Essex et al

Filing 53

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/1/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's claim for punitive damages (Doc. No. 41 ) be denied. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACYE WASHINGTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. ESSEX, et al.,

15

No. 2:12-cv-3054 CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking relief under

17
18

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

19

damages claim. For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned will recommend denying

20

defendants’ motion.

21

BACKGROUND

22

By way of background, plaintiff claims that during a month-long stay at California

23

Medical Facility, defendants Dr. Essex and Dr. Banyas involuntarily medicated him on separate

24

occasions with antipsychotic drugs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In defendants’

25

pending motion to strike, defense counsel argues that the court should strike plaintiff’s claim for

26

punitive damages on the grounds that: (1) under California law, plaintiff needed authorization by

27

court order to seek punitive damages against a health-care provider; and

28

/////

1

(2) plaintiff’s complaint lacks the requisite factual allegations from which a claim for punitive

2

damages may legitimately be inferred. (Defs.’ Mot. to Strike at 2-5.)

3

DISCUSSION

4

Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may strike from a

5

complaint “an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

6

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

7

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues.” Sidney–Vinstein

8

v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). However, motions to strike are generally

9

disfavored and “should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have

10

no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp.

11

2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). See also Neilson v.

12

Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (“Motions to strike are

13

generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in federal

14

practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic”). Whether to grant a motion to

15

strike is within the sound discretion of the court, but the court must view the pleading in a light

16

most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve any doubt as to the relevance of the

17

challenged allegations in favor of the non-moving party. See In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. v. Sec.

18

Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

19

As an initial matter, in deciding a motion to strike, the court must begin with Rule 12(f)’s

20

plain meaning and determine whether plaintiff’s punitive damages claim is: (1) an insufficient

21

defense, (2) redundant, (3) immaterial, (4) impertinent, or (5) scandalous. Whittlestone v. Handi-

22

Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2010). See generally 5C Charles Alan Wright et al.,

23

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 (3d ed. 2015) (discussing “redundant,”“immaterial,”

24

“impertinent,”and “scandalous” material).

25

Here, plaintiff’s punitive damages claim is plainly not an insufficient “defense.” Second,

26

it is not redundant as it appears in only one place in the complaint. (Compl. at 21.) Third, the

27

request is not immaterial “because whether these damages are recoverable relates directly to the

28

plaintiff’s underlying claim for relief.” Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974. Moreover, punitive
2

1

damages may be recoverable in a case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Fourth, a request

2

for punitive damages is not impertinent “because whether these damages are recoverable pertains

3

directly to the harm being alleged.” Id. Fifth, and finally, defendants have not asserted that

4

plaintiff’s request is “scandalous,” and the court does not on its own initiative find that it is.

5

The court is also unpersuaded by defendants’ arguments in support of the pending motion

6

to strike. First, as to defendants’ argument that plaintiff has not complied with state law

7

requirements allowing him to properly seek punitive damages, insofar as plaintiff needed to

8

comply with California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.13, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that

9

“Rule 12(f) does not authorize a district court to strike a claim for damages on the ground that

10

such damages are precluded as a matter of law.” Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974-75. In this

11

regard, defendants’ motion to strike runs afoul of Rule 12(f)’s limits.

12

As to defendants’ argument that plaintiff has not properly pled his punitive damages

13

claim, this argument is actually one based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim in support of the

14

relief he seeks. If defendants wanted to pursue this line of argument, defendants should have

15

brought a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Ninth

16

Circuit has explained that “were we to read Rule 12(f) in a manner that allowed litigants to use it

17

as a means to dismiss some or all of a pleading . . . we would be creating redundancies within the

18

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (or a motion for summary

19

judgment at a later stage in the proceedings) already serves such a purpose.” Whittlestone, 618

20

F.3d at 974. See also McGuire v. Recontrust Co., N.A., No. 2:11-cv-2787 KJM CKD P, 2013

21

WL 5883782 at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (parties may not use Rule 12(f) to “strike any portion of

22

plaintiff’s prayer for relief.”).

23

In any case, the facts alleged by plaintiff state a claim for violation of the Fourteenth

24

Amendment. A finding that defendants involuntarily medicated plaintiff could include a finding

25

that they acted with “evil motive or intent” or with “reckless and callous indifference” to

26

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654, 669 (9th Cir.

27

2015). Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend denying

28

defendants’ motion to strike.
3

1

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to

3
4
5

randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for
punitive damages (Doc. No. 41) be denied.

6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

8

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

9

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

10

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

11

objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties

12

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

13

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14

Dated: March 1, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19

ec
wash3054.mts

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4