Nicholson v. Baker et al

Filing 85

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that Respondents Motion to Strike Pro Se Motion to Dismiss Counsel (ECF No. 83 ) is granted in part and denied in part. As explained herein, Nicholson may file a motion to dismiss counsel that fully complies with LR IC 6-1(a)(1)(a)(3), (a)(5). The Clerk of Court is directed to strike the document filed as ECF No. 82 from the docket. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/18/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJD)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
7
8
9

RICHARD NICHOLSON,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00486-MMD-CSD
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

10
11

Petitioner Richard Nicholson has filed a pro se motion to dismiss counsel (ECF

12

No. 82). Respondents subsequently filed a motion to strike the motion to dismiss (ECF

13

No. 83). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part

14

Respondents’ motion, and strike Nicholson’s motion to dismiss.

15

Respondents move to strike the motion, in part, because Nicholson failed to

16

comply with the redaction requirements of the Local Rules, specifically LR IC 6-1(a)(2).

17

(Id. at 3-4.) LR IC 7-1 permits the Court to “strike documents that do not comply” with the

18

Local Rules.

19
20

The Court finds that Nicholson’s motion to dismiss contains numerous pages in
which he failed to redact the following personal-data identifiers:

21

1. Social security numbers as required by LR IC 6-1(a)(1), which provides that “[i]f

22

an individual’s Social Security number must be included, only the last four digits

23

of that number should be used” (ECF No. 82 at 11);

24

2. Names of minor children as required by LR IC 6-1(a)(2), which provides that

25

“[i]f the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that

26

child should be used” (Id. at 4, 10-14, 17, 19, 21-22, 29, 31, 33-34);

27
28

3. Dates of birth as required by LR IC 6-1(a)(3), which provides that “[i]f an

1

individual’s date of birth must be included, only the year should be used” (Id. at

2

11); and

3

4. Home addresses as required by LR IC 6-1(a)(5), which provides that “[i]f a

4

home address must be included, only the city and the state should be listed”

5

(Id.).

6

Because the motion to dismiss contains violations of the redaction requirements

7

of the Local Rules, the Court will grant the motion to strike on that basis. However,

8

Nicholson may file a redacted copy of the motion to dismiss that is in full compliance with

9

LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-(a)(3), (a)(5).

10

Respondents also contend that the motion to dismiss should be stricken because

11

it includes “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” in violation of Fed.

12

R. Civ. P. 12(f). (ECF No. 83 at 3-4.) Respondents specifically cite to pages 6-8 in

13

Nicholson’s motion. (Id.)

14

Rule 12(f) states that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense

15

or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The Court may act on

16

its own or on a motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a

17

response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading. See Fed. R.

18

Civ. P. 12(f)(a)-(b).

19

Under the express language of Rule 12(f), only pleadings are subject to motions

20

to strike. See Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). A

21

motion to dismiss is not a “pleading” within the meaning of the Rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

7(a) (pleadings include “a complaint,” “an answer to a complaint,” “an answer to a

23

counterclaim,” “an answer to a crossclaim,” “a third-party complaint,” “an answer to a

24

third-party complaint,” and “a reply to an answer”); see also Foley v. Pont, Case No. 2:11-

25

CV-01769-ECR-V, 2013 WL 782856, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2013) (“Motions to strike

26

apply only to pleadings, and courts are unwilling to construe the rule broadly and refuse

27
28

2

1

to strike motions, briefs, objections, affidavits, or exhibits attached thereto”) (emphasis in

2

original).

3
4

Thus, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 82) is not subject to a
motion to strike under Rule 12(f) and will deny Respondents’ motion on that basis.

5

It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion to Strike Pro Se Motion to Dismiss

6

Counsel (ECF No. 83) is granted in part and denied in part. As explained herein,

7

Nicholson may file a motion to dismiss counsel that fully complies with LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-

8

(a)(3), (a)(5).

9
10
11

The Clerk of Court is directed to strike the document filed as ECF No. 82 from the
docket.
DATED THIS 18th Day of August 2022.

12
13
14

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3