Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00910/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00910-8/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

MICHAEL BIRD,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. MUSLEH,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND (1) DENYING 

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER, (2) 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSES, 

AND (3) DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

(Doc. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 39)

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

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

On November 30, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this court (1) deny plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s 

answer, (2) grant in part and deny in part plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative 

defenses, and (3) deny plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (Doc. No. 39.) With respect to plaintiff’s 

motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses, the magistrate judge recommended that (a) 

affirmative defense Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 be stricken, and (b) defendant be granted leave to 

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 43 Filed 01/19/17 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

amend his answer. (Id. at 4–6.) The findings and recommendations provided the parties with 

fourteen days with which to file objections. (Id.) No objections were filed. On December 30, 

2016, defendant filed an amended answer in response to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 41.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Based on the foregoing, 

1. The November 30, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 39) are adopted in 

full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer (Doc. No. 21) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses (Doc. No. 22) is granted 

in part and denied in part;

4. Affirmative defense Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in defendant’s answer (see Doc. No. 18) 

are stricken; 

5. In light of defendant having already filed his first amended answer (see Doc. No. 41), 

further leave to amend defendant’s answer is denied without prejudice; 

6. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 23) is denied; and

7. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00910-DAD-MJS Document 43 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 2