Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05684/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05684-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

MIKE MORGAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

AL HERRERA, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5684 AWI DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

[DOC 19]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro per and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On May 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to strike certain

affirmative defenses contained in defendant’s answer to the amended complaint filed on March 8,

2005. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), plaintiff seeks to strike defendant’s

affirmative defenses related to exhaustion of administrative remedies and statute of limitations as

insufficient. Plaintiff argues that he exhausted all administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit

and that he filed the action within the statute of limitations referenced by defendant.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a party may move to strike any

“insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

Case 1:04-cv-05684-AWI-DLB Document 22 Filed 09/30/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

12(f). Rule 12(f) motions are proper when a defense is insufficient as a matter of law. Bianchi v.

State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 120 F.Supp.2d 837, 841, citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales,

Inc. V. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (5 Cir. 1982). th

While the challenged affirmative defenses may not ultimately provide a defense to plaintiff’s

claims, they are not insufficient as a matter of law. The determination of whether plaintiff exhausted

all available administrative remedies and whether the action was filed within the applicable statute of

limitations period requires reference to matters outside the pleadings. These issues are not properly 

resolved in a motion to strike. Plaintiff may challenge these defenses, if necessary, in a motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 29, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05684-AWI-DLB Document 22 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2