Mitchell, Jr. v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/18/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DONALD E. MITCHELL JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00037-RFB-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE
(Docket No. 38)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike, Docket No. 38, which is hereby DENIED.

17

A motion to strike material from a pleading is made pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

18

Procedure, which allows courts to strike “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.”

19

The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that may arise

20

from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984

21

F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Motions to strike are

22

disfavored. Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 290 F.R.D. 535, 543 (D. Nev. 2013).

23

“Given their disfavored status, courts often require a showing of prejudice by the moving party before

24

granting the requested relief.” Id. “Whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the sound discretion

25

of the district court.” Id.

26

In this case, Defendants assert that Plaintiff (who is a prisoner proceeding pro se) filed an improper

27

response to their answer. Docket No. 38 at 2; see also Docket No. 37 (“Response” to answer). Defendants

28

assert that Plaintiff’s filing is not in compliance with Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.

1

Regardless of whether Defendants are correct on that point, however, they failed to show any prejudice in

2

not striking that document. Especially with respect to filings of pro se litigants who may be unfamiliar with

3

the technical aspects of the applicable rules, the Court does not find it be a useful expenditure of resources

4

to entertain motions to strike without any showing of prejudice. Cf. Russell Road Food & Bev., LLC v.

5

Galam, 2013 WL 6684631, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2013) (“Modern litigation is too protracted and

6

expensive for the litigants and the court to expend time and effort pruning or polishing the pleadings”

7

(quoting 5C Wright & Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 1382, at 457-58 (2004)).

8

Accordingly, the pending motion to strike is DENIED without prejudice.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

DATED: April 18, 2017
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2