Silcox v. Hunter et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 18 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Hunter's Seventeenth Affirmative Defense. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 4/3/2017. (SEJ) Modified on 4/3/2017 to edit text per Chambers. (TMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
EAAN SILCOX, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Aaron
John Silcox,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-1509-J-32MCR

MARK HUNTER, in his official
capacity as Columbia County Sheriff
and DILLON WESLEY MOORE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This civil rights and wrongful death action is before the Court on Plaintiff Eaan
Silcox’s Motion to Strike Defendant Sheriff Mark Hunter’s Seventeenth Affirmative
Defense (Doc. 18), to which Hunter responded (Doc. 19).
I.

BACKGROUND1
On June 13, 2015, Columbia County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Aaron John

Silcox for traffic offenses, probation violation, and possession of less than 20 grams of
marijuana. At the time of his arrest, Silcox informed the deputies that he was suicidal,
and on June 14, 2015, he was taken to Meridian Behavioral Healthcare pursuant to
the Baker Act, Fla. Stat. § 394.463. The following day, Silcox was transferred to
Columbia County Detention Facility, where he was confined alone in a cell equipped
The facts included in the Background section have been taken from the
allegations of the Complaint. (Doc. 1).
1

with a closed circuit video surveillance camera. Dillon Wesley Moore, a detention
officer at the Facility, was assigned to monitor Silcox. On June 18, 2015, Silcox
committed suicide by hanging himself in his cell.
On December 6, 2016, Plaintiff Eaan Silcox, as personal representative of the
Estate of Aaron John Silcox, filed a two-count complaint against Defendants Mark
Hunter and Dillon Wesley Moore, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I,
against Hunter and Moore) and the Florida Wrongful Death Act (Count II, against
Hunter). (Compl., Doc. 1). Moore filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses on January
19, 2017 (Doc. 6), and Hunter filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 7, 2017 (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Hunter’s seventeenth
affirmative defense under Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., (Doc. 18), which Hunter opposes
(Doc. 19).
II.

ANALYSIS
Rule 12(f) provides that upon a party’s motion, “the court may order stricken

from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter.” Pursuant to Rule 12(f), an affirmative defense may be stricken
if it is legally insufficient, however, striking a defense is a “‘drastic remedy[,]’ which is
disfavored by the courts.” Adams v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:11-CV-337-J37MCR, 2011 WL 2938467, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2011) (quoting Thompson v.
Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002)).
“An affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of law only if: (1) on the face of the
pleadings, it is patently frivolous, or (2) it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.”
Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse’s Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla.
2

2002) (citing Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Elec. Authority, 419 F. Supp. 992,
1000 (M.D. Fla. 1976)). Moreover, “[a]n affirmative defense will be held insufficient as
a matter of law only if it appears that the Defendant cannot succeed under any set of
facts which it could prove.” Florida Software Sys., Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare
Corp., No. 97–2866–CIV–T–17B, 1999 WL 781812, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 1999).
Finally, “a court will not exercise its discretion under the rule to strike a pleading
unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy,
may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Id.
Hunter’s seventeenth affirmative defense states:
Plaintiff’s claims are, in part or in whole, based on medical
care provided to the decedent. Accordingly, Count II of
Plaintiff’s Complaint are [sic] barred by the applicable
statute of limitations and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the notice and pre-suit requirements of Florida’s medical
malpractice law.
(Doc. 13 at 7 ¶ 17). The parties agree that Plaintiff has not alleged claims under
Florida’s medical malpractice statute. (Doc. 18 at 3) (“Plaintiff’s claims are not based
on medical negligence.”); (Doc. 19 at 3) (“Plaintiff is correct that he ‘did not raise any
claims under Florida’s medical malpractice statutes, Chapter 766, Florida Statutes.’”).
Plaintiff has not asserted claims against medical providers or staff (only the sheriff in
his official capacity and the detention officer), and states that Hunter “does not . . .
meet the statutory definition of a health care provider.” (Doc. 18 at 5).
While Plaintiff asserts that discovery might reveal facts that could give rise to
a medical negligence claim against health care providers, he states that at this time,
there is no good-faith basis to plead such a claim. (Doc. 18 at 5-6). Thus, Hunter raises

3

this affirmative defense seemingly out of an abundance of caution, reasoning that
Plaintiff’s claims may in fact arise under the medical malpractice statute. However
cautiously raised, this affirmative defense is nonetheless insufficient as a matter of
law. See Nobles v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-1745-T30MAP, 2015 WL 5098877, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2015) (striking defendant’s
affirmative defense to an FCRA claim where the complaint never alleges a violation of
the FCRA). An affirmative defense to a medical negligence claim cannot be said to
bear a relationship to a complaint that does not allege a violation of the medical
negligence statute, and therefore, Hunter’s seventeenth affirmative defense is due to
be stricken. See id. However, should Plaintiff timely amend the complaint to allege
such a claim, Hunter is permitted to raise the affirmative defense should it become
ripe.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff Silcox’s Motion to Strike Defendant Sheriff Mark Hunter’s

Seventeenth Affirmative Defense (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.
2.

Defendant Hunter’s seventeenth affirmative defense (Doc. 13 at 7 ¶ 17)

is STRICKEN.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 3rd day of April, 2017.

4

sj
Copies:
Counsel of record

5