Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00910/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00910-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BIRD,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. ZUNIGA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RULING

(ECF No. 38)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 

NOTICE

(ECF No. 30)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO:

(1) DENY MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER 

(ECF No. 21);

(2) GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART 

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSES (ECF No. 

22); AND

(3) DENY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF 

No. 23)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Musleh on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim.

On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s answer (ECF No. 

21), a motion to strike Defendant’s defenses (ECF No. 22), and a motion for sanctions 

(ECF No. 23). Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 

No. 30.) Within his reply, Plaintiff submitted a request for judicial notice. The motions are

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a ruling on these motions. 

To the extent the motions are addressed herein, the motion for ruling will be granted.

I. Request for Judicial Notice

In Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 30) he asks the Court to take judicial notice of 

circumstances at his institution that made it difficult for him to reply to Defendant’s 

opposition. These facts are not a proper subject of judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) 

(stating that court may take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to dispute because 

they are (1) generally known within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, or (2) can accurately 

and readily be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned). Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice will be denied.

Nonetheless, the Court is cognizant of the difficulties presented by Plaintiff’s 

incarceration and his pro se status. Accordingly, his pleadings will be liberally construed. 

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

II. Motion to Strike Answer

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s answer on the ground that it does not comply 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(1)(A) because it states no defenses, and does 

not comply with Rule 8(b)(2) because it insufficiently responds to the substance of the 

complaint. He asks that the answer be stricken in its entirety.

Defendant responds that his answer is adequate. He responded to each part of 

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the complaint and denied the facts stated in Plaintiff’s three-page “Supporting Facts” 

attachment to the complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown how he was prejudiced 

by the answer.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) a court may “strike from a pleading an 

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 

Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 

omitted). Motions to strike are disfavored, “because of the limited importance of pleading 

in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Neilson v. 

Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Plaintiff’s attempt to strike Defendant’s answer in its entirety is unavailing.

1 He 

does not allege that the answer is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Nor 

does the Court find the answer to meet such criteria.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s arguments based on Rule 8 are misplaced. Rule 

8(b)(1)(A) provides that, “[i]n responding to a pleading, a party must . . . state in short 

and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it[.]” Here, Defendant’s 

answer contains a list of affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 18.) The sufficiency of these 

defenses is discussed below. However, Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant wholly failed 

to state any defenses is incorrect. 

Rule 8(b)(2) provides that “[a] denial must fairly respond to the substance of the 

allegation.” However, Rule 8(b)(3) allows a party to present a general denial, and Rule 

8(b)(5) allows a party to state that he or she “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth of an allegation.” The answer complies with these provisions 

by either (1) admitting certain allegations, (2) issuing a general denial as to all of the 

factual allegations contained in Part IV of the complaint and the “Supporting Facts” 

attachment, or (3) stating that Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to 

admit or deny the allegation. 

 

1

Plaintiff’s request to strike individual defenses is discussed below.

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiff has not shown a basis for striking the answer under Rule 12(f), nor has he 

shown a violation of Rule 8(a) or (b). His motion to strike the answer should be denied.

III. Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not provided sufficient detail to support his 

affirmative defenses under the “heightened” pleading standards set out in Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007). According to Plaintiff, Defendant has asserted boilerplate defenses that lack 

factual support and that do not provide Plaintiff with fair notice.

As stated, the Court has authority to strike insufficient defenses under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The function of Rule 12(f) is “to avoid the expenditure of 

time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by disposing of those 

issues prior to trial.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi—Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 

2010).

Motions to strike affirmative defenses “are disfavored and infrequently granted.”

Neveau v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2005). The Court “must 

view the pleading under attack in the light more favorable to the pleader.” Garcia ex rel. 

Marin v. Clovis Unified School Dist., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83352, 2009 WL 2982900, at 

*23 (E.D. Cal. Sept.14, 2009) (internal citation omitted). Even if a court strikes an 

affirmative defense, leave to amend should be freely given where the opposing party will 

not be prejudiced given the strong policy favoring resolution of cases “on the proofs 

rather than the pleadings.” Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 242 F.2d 208, 213 

(9th Cir. 1957); Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979).

An affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of pleading if it fails to give 

plaintiff “fair notice.” “The ‘fair notice’ required by the pleading standards only requires 

describing the defense in ‘general terms.’” Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., 779 F.3d 

1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 1274 (3d ed. 1998)). This is less demanding than the 

Twombly/Iqbal standard. Dodson v. Munirs Co., No. CIV. S-13-0399 LKK, 2013 U.S. 

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Dist. LEXIS 85768, 2013 WL 3146818, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2013) (“Fair notice 

generally requires that the defendant identify the nature and grounds for the affirmative 

defense, rather than plead a detailed statement of the facts upon which the defense is 

based.”). “Although fair notice is a low bar that does not require great detail, it does 

require a defendant to provide some factual basis for its affirmative defenses.” United 

States v. Gibson Wine Co., No. 15-1900, 2016 WL 1626988, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 

2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 

315 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“A reference to a doctrine, like a reference 

to statutory provisions, is insufficient notice.”) Simply referring to a doctrine or statute is 

insufficient to afford fair notice. Wild v. Benchmark Pest Control, Inc., 2016 WL 1046925, 

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016); Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 2015 WL 7272222, at *4 (S.D. 

Cal. Nov. 17, 2015); Beco Dairy Automation Inc. v. Global Tech Systems, Inc., 2015 WL 

5732595 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2015); Kohler v. Staples, 291 F.R.D. 464, 469 (S.D. Cal. 

2013). Likewise, “[s]imply identifying an affirmative defense by name does not provide 

fair notice of the nature of the defense or how it applies in [the] action. . . .” Bd. of Trs. of 

IBEW Local Union No. 100 Pension Tr. Fund v. Fresno's Best Indus. Elec., Inc., No. 13-

01545, 2014 WL 1245800, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2014).

Defendant fails to provide any factual basis for the following affirmative defenses: 

No. 1 (qualified immunity), No. 5 (failure to mitigate damages), No. 6 (Plaintiff’s 

contribution to damages), No. 7 (Eleventh Amendment immunity), and No. 8 (statute of 

limitations). These defenses merely state a doctrine or legal theory without any indication 

as to how the doctrine may apply in this case. Accordingly, these defenses should be 

stricken.

Additionally, Defense No. 4 (failure to exhaust state tort remedies) is legally

insufficient. An affirmative defense is legally insufficient if it clearly lacks merit “under any 

set of facts the defendant might allege.” McArdle v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 657 F. Supp.

2d 1140, 1149-50 (N.D. Cal. 2009). As this matter proceeds only on a constitutional 

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

claim, Defendant cannot defend on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative requirements for state tort claims. 

Defense No. 7 (Eleventh Amendment immunity) also may be legally insufficient as 

it appears Defendant is sued only in his personal capacity, and thus Eleventh 

Amendment immunity would not apply. 

Likewise, Defense No. 8 (statute of limitations) may be legally insufficient because 

the action appears to have been filed well within the statute of limitations.

The remaining defenses are legally sufficient and provided Plaintiff with fair notice 

of the defense. Defense No. 2 raises claim and issue preclusion “[t]o the extent Plaintiff 

has previously litigated the issues raised in the FAC.” Defense No. 3 alleges that Plaintiff 

has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act. Defense No. 9 is merely a reservation of the right to assert additional 

defenses in light of the conclusory nature of the complaint. Plaintiff argues that 

Defendant has failed to “prove” the applicability of claim or issue preclusion and of 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. However, Defendant is not required to do so at the pleading 

stage. 

In sum, Defendant’s affirmative defenses Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 should be 

stricken. Although Plaintiff suggests that Defendant cannot state facts to support several 

of the affirmative defenses, Plaintiff does not suggest that he will be prejudiced by any 

amendment. Accordingly, Defendant should be given leave to amend his answer to 

allege some factual basis for the stricken defenses, to the extent he is able to do so.

IV. Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant for filing an insufficient answer 

containing insufficient defenses. 

The Court may impose sanctions against anyone “who so multiplies the 

proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court 

does not find a basis for imposing sanctions under this provision. The pleading stage is 

designed to place parties on notice of the issues and focus the dispute. While 

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Defendants' filings may contain irrelevant defenses, they were not vexatious and do not 

warrant the imposition of sanctions. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is brought pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 11, it is procedurally defective. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) (providing for 

21 day safe harbor between service of motion and filing). In any event, the Court does 

not find a basis for awarding sanctions under this provision. Rule 11(b) prohibits, among 

other things, the submission of pleadings for an improper purpose, or those containing 

legal contentions that are not warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for 

the extension of the law. The Court finds nothing to indicate that the insufficient defenses 

were presented for an improper purpose or that they are wholly frivolous. 

The motion for sanctions should be denied.

V. Conclusion, Order, and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s motion for ruling (ECF No. 38) is HEREBY GRANTED, to the extent his 

motions are addressed herein. His request for judicial notice (ECF No. 30) is HEREBY 

DENIED.

Additionally, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike

Defendant’s affirmative defenses (ECF No. 22) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART, that Defenses Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 be STRICKEN, and that Defendant be 

given leave to amend his answer.

Finally, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike

Defendant’s answer (ECF No. 21), and motion for sanctions (ECF No. 23) be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendations, any party 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 39 Filed 11/30/16 Page 8 of 8