Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02272/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02272-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jermaine Jordan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2272-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Production

of Evidentiary Documents, doc. 32, and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant

Moore’s Dismissal of this Case, doc. 33. (Doc. 35) Also pending before the Court is

Plaintiff’s “Statue [sic] of Limitations (Tolled) in this Current Case.” (Doc. 36)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate in the custody of the Arizona Department

of Corrections, who commenced this § 1983 action on November 18, 2011. (Doc. 1) He

alleges Defendants Ryan, Moore, Morgan, and Chavez violated his Eighth Amendment

rights. (Id.) In its February 8, 2012 Screening Order, the Court dismissed Defendants Ryan

and Chavez and ordered Defendants Moore and Morgan to answer the Complaint. (Doc. 8)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Moore and Morgan failed to protect him from being raped

by his cellmate in August 2008. (Doc. 1 at 3-13)

Case 2:11-cv-02272-ROS Document 37 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Defendant Moore represents that as of July 25, 2012, Defendant Morgan has not

been served. (Doc. 35 at 1, n. 1)

- 2 -

Citing LRCiv 7.2(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), Defendant Moore1

 moves to strike two

filings by Plaintiff: 1) Plaintiff’s “Production of Evidentiary Documents,” doc. 32, and 2)

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Moore[’s] Dismissal of this Case, doc. 33. (Doc. 35)

Defendant points out that Plaintiff attached approximately eleven (11) documents to his

filing entitled Production of Evidentiary Documents, doc. 32, which Defendant argues is

“nothing more than a refilling of the documents he attached to his Complaint” and Plaintiff’s

“Motion For (Just Cause) Added Documents In Regards to Exhausted Remedies,” doc. 19.

(Id. at 1) Defendant also requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Moore[’s]

Dismissal of this Case, doc. 33, because it “is really a sur-reply” for which permission to file

has not been authorized by the Court. (Id. at 2)

The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Strike regarding Plaintiff’s filing entitled

Production of Evidentiary Documents, doc. 32. Local Rule of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”)

7.2(m)(1) authorizes a motion is strike if it is otherwise authorized by statute or rule, such

as, Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P. “or if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the

ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.” LRCiv

7.2(m)(1). Although Defendant filed the motion, in part, on Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

Plaintiff’s filings do not fall within the parameters of Rule 12(f). Rule 12(f) provides that

“[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). That is not the situation here. Neither

document filed by Plaintiff was a “pleading,” but rather, were unauthorized pro se filings

with the Clerk. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) specifically sets forth what documents

are allowed and considered a “pleading,” namely “(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a

complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to

a cross claim; (5) a third party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7)

if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). Plaintiff’s filings do not

Case 2:11-cv-02272-ROS Document 37 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

fall within any of these categories.

 Although the Court is denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike as insufficient under

Rule 12(f), the Court will grant the motion under LRCiv 7.2(m)(1) because Plaintiff’s filings

are not authorized by a statute, rule, or prior court order. 

Pro se Plaintiff is informed that Rule 5(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that:

[D]isclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) and (2) and the following discovery requests

and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the

court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or

tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for admission. 

Plaintiff must not file evidentiary documents with the Clerk unless the documents are part

of a dispositive motion or upon the express prior approval of the Court. Rather, if the

documents are disclosures or responses to discovery, an attorney or pro se litigant simply

mails them directly to the opposing party and files a Notice of Service pursuant to LRCiv

5.2. If and when the documents need to be used in connection with a dispositive motion or

response, they are attached as exhibits to the motion or response. See, e.g., LRCiv 56.1(a).

Therefore, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s Production of Evidentiary Documents, doc. 32,

as an unauthorized filing. With respect to the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response

to Defendant Moore[’s] Dismissal of this case, the Court also agrees with Defendant.

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 20, 2012. (Doc. 28) Plaintiff filed his

Response on June 27, 2012. (Doc. 30) Defendant then filed a Reply on July 10, 2012. (Doc.

31) On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff then filed an unauthorized sur-rely, but labeled it as

Response to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 33) 

As discussed above and consistent with Rule 7(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., a motion, a response,

and a reply are appropriate pleadings filed to date in this case. There is no rule or prior court

order authorizing Plaintiff’s Response to a Reply, doc. 33, also known as a sur-reply.

Plaintiff has already filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion. Therefore, the Court will strike

Plaintiff’s “Response to Defendant Moore[’s] dismissal of this Case,”doc. 33, as

unauthorized by the rules or this Court. 

Case 2:11-cv-02272-ROS Document 37 Filed 08/01/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Finally, the Court will order Defendant to file a responsive pleading within 21 days

from the date of this Order regarding Plaintiff’s “Statue [sic] of Limitations (Tolled) in this

Current Case.” (Doc. 36) Plaintiff may then file a reply within 21 days after the response

is filed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike, doc. 35, is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part. The Motion is denied on the ground that Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., is

inapplicable to Plaintiff’s filings. It is granted, however, under LRCiv 7.2(m)(1) because

Plaintiff’s filings are not authorized by a statute, rule, or prior court order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Production of Evidentiary Documents,

doc. 32, and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Moore[’s] Dismissal of this Case, doc. 33,

are hereby STRICKEN as unauthorized filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must file a response to Plaintiff’s

Motion entitled “Statue [sic] of Limitations (Tolled) in this Current Case,” doc. 36, within

21 days from the date Plaintiff filed said motion.

Dated this 31th day of July, 2012. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-02272-ROS Document 37 Filed 08/01/12 Page 4 of 4