Whiteside v. Folsom et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 7/8/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DINARR WHITESIDE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SGT. FOLSOM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-224-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is a Motion to Strike (Doc. 38) file by Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to
strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses in their Answer because, Plaintiff argues, the answer is
insufficient and redundant. Defendants have file a Response (Doc. 40) in opposition to the motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the court may “strike from a pleading
an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

In

Defendants’ Answer (Doc. 38) they have raised affirmative defenses of qualified immunity, immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity, failure to exhaust, and barring mental an
emotional damages. All of the affirmative defenses raise are standard defenses to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim. Plaintiff has not stated any basis for striking the affirmative defenses. Although he
states the defenses are insufficient and redundant, he does not offer any support for that argument or
justification for any of the defenses to be stricken. The Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently
pled each defense which is all that is required at this stage. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 38). IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 8, 2013.

/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge