Hendricks v. Singleton et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 28 MOTION to Strike 23 Answer to Complaint filed by Larry Edward Hendricks. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 7/20/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Larry Edward Hendricks,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Shirley Singleton; LeVern Cohen;
Pamela Garnsey; and V. Robinson,
individually and in their official
capacities,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:14-3158-DCN-SVH

ORDER

Larry Edward Hendericks (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights during his incarceration at Ridgeland Correctional Institution
(“RCI”) of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”).1 Plaintiff sues RCI
employees Shirley Singleton, LeVern Cohen, Pamela Garnsey, and V. Robinson
(collectively “Defendants”). This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to strike
portions of Defendants’ answer [ECF No. 28]. Defendants having filed a response [ECF
No. 34], this matter is ripe for disposition. All pretrial proceedings in this case were
referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
Plaintiff seeks to strike portions of Defendants’ answer to the complaint based on
his disagreement with Defendants’ basis for certain defenses. [ECF No. 28]. The court

1

Plaintiff is now in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health.

may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, motions to strike “are
generally viewed with disfavor because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic
remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.” Waste
Mgmt. Holdings v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). “Accordingly, a motion to strike a matter from an answer will not
be granted, unless the moving party demonstrates that the challenged material is so
unrelated to the plaintiff’s claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense
such that its presence in the pleading throughout the proceeding will be prejudicial to the
moving party.” McIntyre-Handy v. APAC Customer Servs., 2006 WL 1771048 (E.D.Va.
June 23, 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Plaintiff has provided no basis for his claim that the defenses he takes issue with
are insufficient, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. An answer is not required to
contain factual allegations, but must only state its defenses in short and plain terms and
admit or deny the allegations of the complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 20, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2