Harris v. Ryker et al

Filing 28

ORDER re 19 Response filed by Larry Harris. The Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff's Response as a Motion to Strike and DENIES the motion to strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 10/7/11. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY G. HARRIS, #N-57672,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DERWIN L. RYKER, RUSSELL GOINS,
RANDALL BAYLER, and BRIAN
STAFFORD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11–cv–134–MJR–SCW

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Claim of Affirmative Defenses
and Qualified Immunity (Doc. 19) which this Court has construed as a motion to strike. Specifically,
Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s claims of qualified immunity and claims regarding the 11th
Amendment. Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they did
not act in good faith and had knowledge of the law when they violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
also argues that he suffered physical injuries and should be able to recover for those. Defendants have
filed a Response to Plaintiff’s motion (Docs. 21 & 22). Based on the following, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
FED .R.CIV.P. 12(f). It is, of course, “the general rule that motions to strike are disfavored. This is
because motions to strike potentially serve only to delay.” He lle r Fin ., In c . v . Mid w h e y Po w d e r Co .,
883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). However, where a motion to strike “removes unnecessary clutter
from the case [it] serve[s] to expedite, not delay.” Id . Ordinarily, defenses will not be struck if they are

sufficient as a matter of law or if they present questions of law or fact.” Id . As defenses are pleadings
they are subject to all of the requirements in the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and will not
be stricken unless insufficient on their face. Id . All that is required is that a pleading, including an
affirmative defense, set forth a “short and plain statement.” Id . (citing FED .R.CIV.P. 8(a)).
Here, Defendants have raised the defenses of qualified immunity and those defenses
based on 11th Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Each affirmative defense meets the requirements
of setting forth a short and plain statement of the defenses and thus are adequate defenses to present
at this time. While Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to these defenses because they acted
in bad faith or because he was caused injuries, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff merely contradicts the
factual basis for the defenses, but has not shown that the defenses fail to present questions of law and
fact. Thus, Defendants affirmative defenses have been adequately pled and Plaintiff has failed to meet
his burden that the defenses lack issues of fact or law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
construed motion to strike affirmative defenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 7, 2011
/s/Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2