BLACK et al v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 32 Motion to Dismiss. It is further ORDERED that the Medical Defendants file a response to the Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the docketing of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 6/11/2013. (mjl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEBRA BLACK; EARL BLACK,
Administrators of the Estate of
DERECK BLACK,

Civil Action No. 2:13-00179

)

Plaintiffs,

)
)
)

District Judge David Stewart Cercone
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

)
)
)

)

~

ALLEGHENY COUNTY; ALLEGHENY
COUNTY CORR. SERVICES;
WILLIAM S. STICKMAN, III; DANA
PHILLIPS; MICHAEL PATTERSON,
M.D.; LUCILLE AIKEN, M.D.; KIM
WILSON, M.D.; TRACY HARTEL, R.N.;
CHRIS MARSH, R.N.; VALERY
SLEPSKY; MEDICAL STAFF JOHN
AND JANE DOES No. 1-15;
CORRECTIONAL STAFF JOHN AND
JANE DOES No. 1-15,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983, the Court considers a
"Motion to Dismiss" filed on behalf of Defendants, Allegheny County Correctional Services,
Dana Phillips, Michael Patterson, M.D., Lucile Aiken, M.D., Kim Wilson, M.D., Tracy Hartel,
R.N., Chris Marsh, R.N., Valery Slepsky, Medical Staff John and Jane Does No.1 -15, and
Correctional Staff John and Jane Does No. 1-15 (collectively, "the Medical Defendants"). [ECF

No. 32].1 The Court has reviewed the Motion and finds that it is most appropriately considered
and evaluated under the law applicable to a Motion to Strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(t)?
In their Motion, the Medical Defendants claim that the Amended Complaint contains
materials and comments that are not only superfluous to the cause of action raised by the
Plaintiffs, but also immaterial, impertinent and/or scandalous. They contend that certain
allegation are unnecessarily harsh, vague, irrelevant to this litigation, besmirch the reputation of
the Medical Defendants, and refer to time periods preceding this litigation and to cases involving
inmates not relevant here. According to the Medical Defendants, "these irrelevant allegations ...
could ... force the Defendants to retry matters currently in litigation, to delve into the private
health information of [other inmates], and increase the scope and length of duration [sic]
unnecessarily." [Id. at 23]. These Defendants thus ask the Court to strike the Amended
Complaint in its entirety, and direct that Plaintiffs file a new Complaint "which contains no
materials which violate FRCP 12(t)." [Id. at p.3].
Rulings on motions to strike rest in the sound discretion of the Court. See Dougherty v.
Advanced Wings, LLC, No. 13-CV-447, 2013 WL 2434991 at *1 (M.D. Pa. June 4, 2013). See
also Krisa v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 109 F. Supp.2d 316, 319 (M.D. Pa. 2000). As Plaintiffs
note, the law establishes that granting "[r]elief under Rule 12(t) is generally disfavored and will
be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause
prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations confuse the issues in this case." Mobile
Conversions, Inc., v. Allegheny Ford Truck Sales, Inc., No. 12-1485,2013 WL 1946183 at *3

I The facts of this matter are well known to the parties and are set out in a Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 38] addressing the Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of William
Stickman, III and Allegheny County. [ECF No. 29] Thus, the Court need not repeat them here.

This rule provides, in relevant part, that "the court may order stricken from any pleading any
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."

2

2

(W.D. Pa. May 9, 2013). Much of what these Defendants deem irrelevant is, in fact, pertinent to
establishing a custom, policy, and knowledge on the part of the municipal defendants for
purposes of surviving the remaining Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 29].
As to besmirching the reputation of the Medical Defendants, the Court finds that these
parties have not shown prejudice as a result of allegations that, in any event, do not exceed the
bounds of those made in virtually all section 1983 medical care cases. 3 Courts have regularly
required that the moving party demonstrate prejudice before the court will strike a pleading.
Great West Life. Assur. Co. v. Levithan, 834 F. Supp. 858, 864 (E.D. Pa. 1993) ("Motions to
strike are often not granted if there is an absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving
party.").
Finally, with respect to the Medical Defendants' allegation that the Amended Complaint
may create the necessity to retry matters currently in litigation and to reveal health information
of non-parties, these issues, should they arise, are well within the Court's ability to manage as
litigation progresses.
For the reasons set out above, IT IS NOW, this 11 th day of June, 2013, ORDERED that
the Motion to Dismiss filed at [ECF 32] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Medical
Defendants file a response to the Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the docketing of
this Order.

3 The Court certainly understands why Nurse Marsh, who, according to her counsel, suffered from a knee condition
serious enough to require surgery, would be offended at being called "lazy" because she did not walk from cell to
cell. It is not yet clear, however, that this allegation has no bearing on the subject matter of this suit. Consequently,
the Court declines to strike it. See Trivedi v. Slawecki, No. ll-cv-02390, 2013 WL 1767593 at * I (M.D. Pa. April
24, 2013) (quoting 5D Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 for
proposition that "general judicial agreement, as reflected in the extensive case law on the subject [is] that [motions
to strike] should be denied unless the challenged allegations have no possible possible relation . . . to the action").
Zaloga v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 671 F. Supp. 2d 623,633 (M.D. 2013) (explaining
that because motions to strike are not favored, court will generally not grant such a motion unless material to be
stricken bears no possible relationship to the controversy and may cause prejudice to a party) (emphasis added).

3

By the Court,

Cynthi
y
United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Counsel of Record via CM-ECF

4