Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY AGNEW, S.D. SHERIFFS,

DEPUTY TADE, S.D. SHERIFFS,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

(1) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

(Doc. No. 60);

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. No. 42);

(3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

OBJECTION (Doc. No. 65)

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff Kyle James (“Plaintiff”),

1

filed this complaint 

against Defendants, Deputy Agnew and Deputy Tade (“Defendants”), alleging his civil 

rights were violated. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) In Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) 

filed on May 13, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that during an altercation with Defendants, 

Defendants struck and kneed Plaintiff in his back causing a laceration to his forehead.

 

1 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se. 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 77 Filed 10/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

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

(Doc. No. 41 at 3.) Plaintiff requests an injunction and damages. (Id. at 5.)2

On May 26, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC. (Doc. No. 

42.) On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. No. 52.) On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to 

dismiss. (Doc. No. 53.) On August 17, 2016, Plaintiff asked for leave to file an additional 

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 59.) 

On August 18, 2016, Judge Dembin issued a report and recommendation (“the 

R+R”), which recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and denied Defendants’ motions to strike. (Doc. 

No. 60 at 1.) Defendants filed timely objections on September 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 65.) 

Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ objections. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court ADOPTS the R+R, GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim 

for injunctive relief, and DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff, who was chained by the legs and waist, was being 

escorted back to his assigned cell in administrative segregation. (Doc. No. 41 at 1, 3.) 

While Plaintiff was being escorted, Plaintiff became upset and grabbed a box of lunches 

and tossed them to the ground. (Id.) Plaintiff then grabbed onto a fence and would not let 

go. (Id.) It took five deputies to take Plaintiff down to the ground and control him. (Id.) 

Plaintiff contends that once on the ground, Plaintiff did not resist. (Id.) Plaintiff then 

alleges that after he was secured by the deputies, Defendants began striking and kneeing 

the Plaintiff in his back causing a laceration to his forehead. (Id.) Plaintiff asks for an 

injunction and damages from both Defendants for the emotional and physical abuse he 

has suffered. (Id. at 5.) 

///

 

2 All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF page number, not the page 

number in the original documents.

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 77 Filed 10/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

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

On May 26, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and strike parts of 

Plaintiff’s TAC. (Doc. No. 42-1.) Defendants alleged that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive 

relief should be dismissed because there is no factual basis for injunctive relief. (Id. at 3.) 

In addition, Defendants moved to strike parts of the TAC stating that Plaintiff’s case 

citations are immaterial and constitute legal arguments that are improper in the 

complaint. Furthermore, Defendants moved to strike the Citizens Law Enforcement 

Review Board (“CLERB”) exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s TAC stating that it references 

issues unrelated to this instant matter. (Id. at 5.) 

These motions were referred to Judge Dembin for issuance of a R+R. In resolving 

the motion to dismiss, Judge Dembin recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss as the TAC contains no allegations to support the request for injunctive 

relief. (Doc. No. 60 at 5.) Moreover, the Court further recommended that Plaintiff not be 

granted leave to amend as any new allegations would not be sufficient to state a claim for 

injunctive relief. (Id. at 5-6.) Lastly, Judge Dembin denied Defendants’ motions to strike 

finding that Plaintiff’s complaint was not prejudicial to Defendants and that the CLERB 

exhibit is relevant to Plaintiff’s TAC. (Id. at 7-8.) 

Defendants filed a timely objection to the R+R on September 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 

65.) Defendants contend that no prejudice would result to Plaintiff’s claim of excessive 

force if Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s case citation allegations and legal

arguments set forth in the TAC is granted. (Id. at 2.) As such, the motion to strike in this 

case would simply be a “limited measure to clarify the complaint to be answered.” (Id.)

LEGAL STANDARDS 

I. Review of the Report and Recommendation 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a 

district judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 

The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report” to 

which objection is made, and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 77 Filed 10/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

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 v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of 

timely objection(s), the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory 

Committee notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003). 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Strike Legal Citations and Legal Argument 

The R+R found that Plaintiff’s citations to legal authority are not unduly prejudicial 

to Defendants. (Doc. No. 60 at 7.) Furthermore, the R+R found that Plaintiff, who is 

pleading pro se, should be held to less strict standards than a formal lawyer. (Id.) 

Defendants object to the R+R asserting that the case citations and legal arguments that 

Defendants seek to strike are “not factual averments of any occurrence involving 

Defendants that give rise to Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force.” (Doc. No. 65 at 2.) As 

such, those portions of the TAC should be stricken.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court “may strike from a

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 

matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to “avoid the 

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing 

with those issues prior to trial.” Whittlestone Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 

(9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

Motions to strike are “generally disfavored and are not granted unless it is clear that the 

matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the 

litigation.” Kosta v. Del Monte Co., No. 12-cv-01722-YGR, 2013 WL 2147413, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. May 15, 2013.) See Int’l Longshoreman’s Assoc. v. VA. Int’l Terminals, Inc., 

904 F. Supp. 500, 504 (E.D. Va. 1995) (“even a properly made motion to strike is a drastic 

remedy which is disfavored by the courts and infrequently granted”)). When ruling on a 

motion to strike, a court should view the pleading under attack in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party. Jones v. AIG Risk Mgmt. Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1061 (N.D. 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 77 Filed 10/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

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

Cal. July 20, 2010).

Defendants cite to a variety of cases to support their motion to strike. However, the 

Court finds Defendants’ case references to be inapplicable to the present matter. In Morse 

v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., none of the parties were pro se and the court was dealing with 

a motion to dismiss. 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). In Victorious v. Lanigan and Gibney 

v. FitzGibbon, a party was pleading pro se but the courts in those matters were again dealing 

with a motion to dismiss. No. 15-6949 FLW, 2016 WL 2981759, at *1 (D.N.J. May 23, 

2016); 257 Fed.Appx. 111, 112 (3rd Cir. 2013). In the instant matter, Plaintiff is proceeding 

pro se and Defendants are requesting a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s TAC. As 

such, the Court finds Defendants’ case references to be unpersuasive. 

Furthermore, the Court agrees with the R+R and finds that Plaintiff’s pleadings 

should be held to a “less stringent standard” than those documents drafted by a formal 

lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 596 (1972). The Court believes that 

Defendants will not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s alleged legal assertions at the pleading 

stage and striking portions of Plaintiff’s TAC will not help save the Court any time or 

money. Defendants also argue that the motion to strike in this case would simply be a 

“limited measure to clarify the complaint to be answered.” (Doc. No. 65 at 2.) However, 

as case law clearly dictates, a motion to strike is a “drastic measure” and the Court finds 

that Plaintiff’s complaint of excessive force need not be further clarified.

3 Thus, 

Defendants’ objection is DENIED.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the court thereby ADOPTS the R+R, (Doc. No. 60), 

OVERRULES Defendants’ objection, (Doc. No. 65), GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief with prejudice, (Doc. No. 42-1), and 

 

3 See Stanbury Law Firm v. IRS, 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000) (“striking a party’s 

pleadings is an extreme measure, and, as a result, we have previously held that [m]otions 

to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently 

granted”).

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 77 Filed 10/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

15-cv-409- AJB- MDD

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

DENIES both of Defendants’ motions to strike. As such, the Court ADOPTS the Report 

and Recommendation in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 77 Filed 10/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6