Brown v. City of Cottleville et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER :IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiff's first amended complaint [Doc # 17 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs claim against City of Cottleville in Count I and his claims against all defendants in Count II are stricken. re: 16 Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Cottleville, Missouri, City of, Defendant Brett Mitchell, Defendant Scott Lewis. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/11/16. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CITY OF COTTLEVILLE, MISSOURI,
Case No. 4:15-CV-782 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to strike portions of
plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Plaintiff has not
filed a response and the time allowed for doing so has expired.
Plaintiff Chad Brown was a sergeant employed by the City of Cottleville,
Missouri. He alleges that his employment was terminated in violation of his
constitutional rights and that he was prosecuted on false charges following his
termination. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city and
defendants Scott Lewis and Brett Mitchell. Plaintiff claims that the defendants
violated his rights under the First Amendment (Count I) and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution.
He also asserts state law claims of wrongful
termination (Count III) and malicious prosecution (Count IV).
On September 21, 2015, the Court dismissed the First Amendment claim in
Count I against the City of Cottleville for failure to state a claim of municipal liability
under § 1983. The Court also dismissed, as to all defendants, plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process claim in Count II for failure to state a claim.
Although the defendants also sought dismissal of the wrongful termination
claim in Count III, the Court gave plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended
complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies with respect to the claim.
timely filed an amended complaint containing additional allegations in support of
Count III. However, he also restated Counts I and II in the amended complaint.
Defendants move to strike Count I with respect to plaintiff’s claim against City of
Cottleville and Count II in its entirety.
A court may strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). A
matter is deemed immaterial or impertinent “when not relevant to the resolution of
the issue at hand.” McLafferty v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Indiana, No. 14-564 DSD/SER,
2014 WL 2009086, at *3 (D. Minn. May 16, 2014) (citation omitted).
The amended complaint contains no new allegations that would support the
claims that were previously dismissed. Plaintiff offers no justification for restating
these claims, and the Court finds that they are immaterial and impertinent. See
Raineri Const., LLC v. Taylor, No. 4:12-CV-2297 CEJ, 2014 WL 7506853, at *2
(E.D. Mo. Jan. 9, 2014) (striking repleaded claims where plaintiff failed to address
deficiencies in complaint).
Moreover, defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiff
were allowed to pursue discovery on the dismissed claims.
Inc. v. Ergonomic Partners, Inc., No. 4:08-CV-243 (JCH), 2008 WL 2817106, *2
(E.D. Mo. July 21, 2008) (prejudice requirement satisfied if striking the matter
would “prevent a party from engaging in burdensome discovery, or otherwise
expending time and resources litigating irrelevant issues that will not affect the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike portions of
plaintiff’s first amended complaint [Doc #16] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claim against City of Cottleville in
Count I and his claims against all defendants in Count II are stricken.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of January, 2016.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?