Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01113-43/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

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

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-01113-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

(Doc. 158.)

I. BACKGROUND

Sergio Alejandro Gamez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Fourth Amended 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 8, 2013, against defendants Holland, Gonzalez, 

Tyree, Gentry, Adame, and Jakabosky, on Plaintiff’s retaliation and due process claims. (Doc. 

147.)

On March 20, 2014, defendants Holland, Adame, and Tyree (“Defendants”) filed an 

Answer to the First Amended Complaint containing seventeen affirmative defenses. (Doc. 

156.) On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike some of Defendants’ affirmative 

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 166 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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

defenses under Rule 12(f). (Doc. 158.) On April 9, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the 

motion. (Doc. 161.) On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 163.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses is now before the court.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE – RULE 12(f)

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may strike 

from a pleading an insufficient defense of 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). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to 

avoid the costs that arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to 

trial. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds,

510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994); Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.,

697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of 

the pleading or from matters which the court may judicially notice. See Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d 

at 1528; Securities and Exch. Comm'n v. Sands, 902 F.Supp. 1149, 1165 (C.D.Cal.1995). 

When ruling on a motion to strike, the court must accept as true the pleader's factual 

allegations. See Vokal v. United States, 177 F.2d 619, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1949).

To prevail on a motion to strike an affirmative defense, the moving party must persuade 

the court that there are no disputed questions of fact or law and that the defense could not 

succeed under any set of circumstances. See Securities and Exch. Comm'n, 902 F.Supp. at 

1165. “Even when the defense under attack presents a purely legal question, courts are 

reluctant to determine disputed or substantial questions of law on a motion to strike.” Id. at 

1166; see Vokal, 177 F.2d at 622-23, 625; United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 812 

F.Supp. 1528, 1535 (E.D. Cal. 1992). Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor 

because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice. See Securities and Exch. 

Comm'n, 902 F.Supp. at 1165-66; LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co., 814 F.Supp. 820, 

830 (N.D. Cal.1992). The moving party may thus be required to show prejudice arising from 

///

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 166 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

the matter to be stricken. See Securities and Exch. Comm'n, 902 F.Supp. at 1166; LeDuc, 814 

F.Supp. at 830.

Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses numbers 1-4, 6-8, 14, 15, and 

17, on the grounds that Defendants have no standing, have not set forth the elements of the 

defenses, and have not alleged a factual basis for such defenses. Plaintiff argues that such 

defenses have already been presented and ruled upon by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

District of the State of California. Plaintiff requests the court to take judicial notice of the Fifth 

District Court’s opinion dated September 21, 2012, in habeas corpus case #F061976, In re 

Sergio A. Gamez, which is attached to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ 

affirmative defenses should be stricken so that the focus shifts to the merits of his case. 

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not supported his claims, and it 

appears that Plaintiff simply believes he is right about his claims on the merits and there are no 

possible defenses. Defendants argue that their affirmative defenses were properly raised and 

stated in the Answer, and Plaintiff has identified no particular affirmative defense as defective 

procedurally or deficient in any way. Defendants assert that their affirmative defenses were all 

well grounded and intended to preserve those defenses for later argument on their merits. 

Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ opposition was untimely and should be rejected by the 

court.

Discussion

Plaintiff makes no argument specific to any of Defendants’ individual affirmative 

defenses, nor does he demonstrate any prejudice.1 After review of the affirmative defenses, the 

court is not persuaded that Defendants cannot succeed on any of them under any set of 

circumstances, or that they are insufficient as a matter of law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to 

strike shall be denied. 

///

 

1

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. The court document he submits for consideration is not 

signed.

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 166 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike, 

filed on March 24, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 166 Filed 05/08/14 Page 4 of 4