Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02010/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02010-1/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 1 A more detailed explanation of the factual background of this case can be found

in this Court’s prior rulings. (See e.g. Doc. No. 32.)

- 1 - 07cv2010W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESAU ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-2010 W (JMA)

ORDER:

1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

(Doc. No. 43.)

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Doc. No. 40.)

vs.

S. RIVAS, et. al.,

Defendants.

On October 17, 2007, Plaintiff Esau Rogers (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, commenced this action alleging various constitutional and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claims.1

 (Doc. No. 1.) On May 10, 2010, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued

a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion strike

be denied. (Doc. No. 43.) 

On June 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 46.) The Court decides

the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R.

7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection,

ADOPTS the Report, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike.

Case 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA Document 47 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv2010W

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Review of Magistrate Judge’s Report

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “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 findings or

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

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

B. Motion to Strike

Rule 12(f) provides that a federal court may strike from the pleadings any

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). The function of a motion to strike is to avoid the unnecessary

expenditures that arise throughout litigation by dispensing of any spurious issues prior

to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983); Chong

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2006). Rule

12(f) motions “are generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance

of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.”

Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Thus, courts generally grant a motion to strike only where “it is clear that the matter to

be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.”

LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co.,814 F.Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to strike any portion of Defendant Rivas’ Answer that is

“deemed moot, irrelevant, or dilatory.” (Doc. No. 40 at 5, 8, 9.) Upon review,

Case 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA Document 47 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 07cv2010W

Magistrate Judge Adler did not find anything within Rivas’ pleading that warranted the

requested relief. (Doc. No. 43 at 2.)

In his Objection, Plaintiff simply states that Magistrate Judge Adler erred in his

interpretation. (Doc. No. 46 at 2.) He does not, however, explain how Magistrate Judge

Adler erred, nor does he specifically identify what portions of Rivas’ Answer should be

stricken. The Court is unimpressed.

Moreover, having reviewed Rivas’ Answer, the Court is unable to find any

insufficiently pled defenses or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous

matter that would warrant striking the pleading. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f).

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection, ADOPTS the

Report in its entirety, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike. (Doc. Nos. 43, 40.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA Document 47 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3