Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDONAI EL-SHADDAI aka WILKERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0122 DFL CMK P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed an “..Objection to Defendants [sic]

Answer...” (doc. 31), which the court construes as a motion to strike defendants’ Answer. Rule

12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that motions to strike be filed within

twenty days of service of the pleading. Court records indicate that defendants served their

answer on October 19, 2006. Plaintiff’s motion to strike was served on November 6, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely and the court will recommend it be denied on that

ground.

Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff’s motion to strike was timely, the court

would still recommend denial. “‘[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 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

2

those issues prior to trial . . . .’” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)

(quoting Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983)), rev’d on other

grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). 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 the matter to be stricken. See

Securities and Exch. Comm’n, 902 F. Supp. at 1166; LeDuc, 814 F. Supp. at 830. 

Plaintiff in this action moves to strike the defendants’ First, Second, Third,

Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth affirmative defenses. Upon careful consideration of plaintiff’s

arguments and of the parties’ pleadings pursuant to the standards set forth above, this court is not

persuaded that defendants cannot succeed on any of the challenged defenses under any set of

circumstances. Accepting as true defendants’ factual allegations, the court finds it premature to

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 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

3

 hold that defendants’ affirmative defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. Nor has plaintiff

demonstrated prejudice. Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion to strike

be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

November 6, 2006 “...Objection to Defendants [sic] Answer...,” (doc. 31) which the court

construes as a motion to strike defendants’ Answer be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3