Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02396/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02396-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ARCEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is committed to a state hospital under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act 

(“SVPA”). He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On July 18, 2016, defendants filed a motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s third 

amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

Rule 12(f) provides that:

The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court 

may act:

(1) on its own; or

(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the 

pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being 

served with the pleading.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

////

Case 2:11-cv-02396-MCE-KJN Document 45 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Pursuant to the district court’s May 5, 2016 and November 23, 2016 orders, this action 

proceeds on plaintiff’s retaliation claims against defendants Surjick, Kong, and McHugh for their 

actions in February of 2012, and defendant Savage based on his actions in September of 2012. 

This court’s screening order contemplated that defendants Surjick, Kong, McHugh and Savage 

would only respond to plaintiff’s allegations addressed to his retaliation claims against such 

defendants. Therefore, defendants’ motion to strike paragraphs 5-8, 10-12, 16-20, 22-53, 62-67, 

69, 71-73, 75-84, 86-96, 100 and 103 is granted. Plaintiff’s paragraphs 97-99 contain his legal 

arguments concerning the alleged retaliation by these remaining defendants, which the court will 

not strike, but defendants are not required to address paragraphs 97-99 in their responsive 

pleading. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 39) is partially granted; 

2. Paragraphs 5-8, 10-12, 16-20, 22-53, 62-67, 69, 71-73, 75-84, 86-96, 100 and 103 are 

stricken from plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 27); and

3. Defendants Surjick, Kong, McHugh and Savage shall file a responsive pleading within 

twenty-one days from the date of this order.

Dated: December 1, 2016

/arce2396.str

Case 2:11-cv-02396-MCE-KJN Document 45 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2