Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KYLE JAMES 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DEPUTY AGNEW, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE RE: PARTIAL MOTION 

TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO 

STRIKE PORTIONS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 42] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 

Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS: 1) 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against 

Defendants be GRANTED; 2) Defendants’ motion to strike legal citations in 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be DENIED; and 3) Defendants’ 

motion to strike an exhibit from the Third Amended Complaint be DENIED. 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 Kyle James (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se. (ECF 

No. 41). In his Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Petitioner claims that his 

civil rights were violated due to excessive force by Deputy Agnew and Deputy 

Tade (“Defendants”) during an altercation on August 13, 2014, at San Diego 

Central Jail (“SDCJ”). (Id.). Plaintiff requests injunctive relief from 

Defendants, as well as damages. (Id. at 5).1 

On May 26, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Strike 

portions of the TAC. (ECF No. 42). Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief is unsupported by factual allegations, and move 

to dismiss the request for injunctive relief. Defendants do not seek to dismiss 

the claims or the request for money damages.2 Defendants also move the 

Court to strike portions of Plaintiff’s TAC. Specifically, Defendants argue 

that the portions of Plaintiff’s TAC which contain citations to legal authority 

are improper and immaterial. Defendants also request that the exhibit 

attached to the TAC be stricken on the grounds that it is immaterial. 

On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff 

does not argue that the allegations in the TAC are sufficient to support the 

request for injunctive relief. Instead, he argues that events that he describes 

for the first time in his brief demonstrate he has been targeted by 

“associates” of Defendants after he filed this action. (ECF No. 41 and ECF 

No. 52 at 7-8). On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF. No 53). 

                                                                

1 All pincite page references refer to the automatically generated ECF page 

number, not the page number in the original document. 

2 Because Plaintiff’s claims also seek money damages, each of the claims and 

the action survive even if the partial motion to dismiss is granted.

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

II. BACKGROUND FACTS 

On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff was being escorted in leg and waist 

chains by Defendants to his assigned cell in SDCJ. (ECF Nos. 41, 42). While 

Plaintiff was being escorted by Defendants he became upset, threw a box of 

lunches onto the floor and then grabbed onto a fence and would not let go. 

(Id.). It took approximately five deputies to finally take Plaintiff to the 

ground and get him under control. (Id.). Both parties agree that the initial 

use of force was justified. The dispute is whether or not Defendants used 

excessive force while Plaintiff was on the ground. Plaintiff contends that he 

was not resisting when he was taken to the ground by five deputies, but 

suffered fist strikes and knee blows from Defendants during that time, which 

caused physical, emotional and mental harm. (ECF No. 41 at 3). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss Request for Injunctive Relief 

1. Legal Standard for Pleading Injunctive Relief 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for the relief 

sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). The Supreme Court has held that: “a plaintiff's 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Lazy Y Ranch LTD. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 

580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008) (“To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim, the plaintiff must allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’”) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)). Courts must 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

construe allegations of the pro se pleadings liberally. See Karim-Panahi v. 

Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). 

“In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may 

be granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the 

light most favorable to plaintiff.” Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). But “the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, 

unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact.” W. Mining 

Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 

To plead injunctive relief, a plaintiff must allege “that he is under 

threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the 

threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must 

be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be 

likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” 

Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (internal citations 

omitted); see Woodard v. Haviland, No. 2:11-CV-01807 LKK KJ, 2014 WL 

950458, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014), report and recommendation adopted,

No. 2:11-CV-1807-LKK, 2014 WL 1330572 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) 

(dismissing request for injunctive relief as to some defendants on motion to 

dismiss in § 1983 action). “[T]he court is not obliged to accept allegations of 

future injury which are overly generalized, conclusory, or speculative.” 

Stevens v. Harper, 213 F.R.D. 358, 370 (E.D. Cal. 2002); see also City of Los 

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109-110 (a plaintiff is required to credibly 

allege that he faces a realistic threat of future harm from the practice he 

seeks to enjoin); Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th 

Cir. 1984) (“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury.”). 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

2. Analysis 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is unsupported by allegations in 

his TAC, and the facts he presents for the first time in his opposition merely 

present a “conjectural” or “hypothetical” threat with a conclusory causal 

connection to the underlying event. 

The TAC contains no allegations to support the request for injunctive 

relief. The TAC does not identify any prospective threat to Plaintiff, much 

less one that is substantial and immediate. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 

relief fails to satisfy the pleading standard set by Rule 8 and Twombly. The 

request for injunctive relief also is insufficiently pled because it is a general 

“obey the law” type of injunction that courts are loathe to enter. Winters v. 

Jordan, No. 2:09-CV-00522-JAM-KJN, 2010 WL 2838633, at *12 (E.D. Cal. 

July 20, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV-S-09-0522, 2010 

WL 3636226 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010), aff'd, 479 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 

2012). Consequently, this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss the request for relief from the TAC be granted. 

The Court further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff not be given leave to 

amend the complaint to add supporting allegations for the injunctive relief 

request. Although Plaintiff attempted to offer curative amendments in his 

opposition, the new allegations are insufficient to support a request for relief, 

for the reasons explained below, such that granting leave to amend would be 

futile. 

Plaintiff’s opposition argues that he has been subjected to misuses of 

force on two occasions by “associates” of Defendants. (ECF No. 52 at 7-8). 

The two incidences occurred on or about January 23, 2016, and February 5, 

2016, about one year after the original filing of this complaint or about 18 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

months after the initial alleged misuse of force by Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff 

asserts that the timing of the alleged misuses of force are “circumstantial and 

direct evidence [that] a prospective harm exists,” and that those attacks were 

retaliatory in nature. (Id.). The record contradicts Plaintiff’s allegations. 

 Plaintiff has not stated facts sufficient to show that the first incident 

was retaliatory or that it involved the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges in his 

opposition that he was tased in a retaliatory attack on or about January 23, 

2016. (ECF No. 52 at 6-7). Plaintiff’s own evidence shows, however, that the 

incident was precipitated by Plaintiff’s admitted failure to follow orders and 

was not carried out by either of the named Defendants. (ECF No. 52 at 16). 

This incident also occurred over 17 months after the alleged misuse of force 

by Defendants. It would be unreasonable to infer that the incident was 

fueled by retaliation at the request of Defendants, as Plaintiff alleges. W. 

Mining Council, 643 F.2d at 624. 

Similarly, Plaintiff’s claim that the second alleged misuse of force is 

causally connected and shows a likelihood of harm is also unsupported and 

conclusory. 

If Plaintiff’s TAC were amended to add the new allegations, the 

allegations would not be sufficient to state a claim for injunctive relief. No 

reasonable inference can be made to conclude that Plaintiff is likely to suffer 

irreparable and immediate harm from Defendants. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

B. Motion to Strike Legal Citations and Exhibit 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court “may order 

stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). The 

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 

those issues prior to trial. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 

970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). 

“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed, and a pro se 

complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Motions to strike are not 

favored and “should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be 

stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the 

litigation.” Colaprico v. Sun Microsystem, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. 

Cal. 1991). When a court considers a motion to strike, it “must view the 

pleading in a light most favorable to the pleading party.” In re 

2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec Lit., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000). 

Courts are reluctant to grant motions to strike in the absence of a 

showing of prejudice to the moving party. Mattox v. Watson, No. CV 07-5006-

RGK RZX, 2007 WL 4200213, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2007). “[A]llegations 

supplying background or historical material or other matter of an evidentiary 

nature will not be stricken unless unduly prejudicial to defendant.” LeDuc v. 

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

 The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s citations to legal authority 

are unduly prejudicial to the Defendant. Further, striking the Plaintiff’s 

legal citations will not save the parties and Court “time and money,” as 

Defendants argue. (ECF No. 42 at 4). Additionally, Plaintiff is pleading pro 

se, and his pleadings are held to less stringent standards. Accordingly, the 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to strike legal citations 

from the TAC be DENIED. 

Defendants also request that the Court strike an exhibit attached by 

the Plaintiff on the grounds that it is immaterial. (ECF. No. 42 at 5-6). 

Plaintiff argues that he attached the exhibit to prove that he had exhausted 

his administrative remedies within SDCJ before filing his Complaint. (ECF 

No. 52 at 6-7). Plaintiff contends that the exhibit is material because the 

Defendants alleged in their Answer to the Complaint, “that the action is 

barred by plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” (ECF No. 34 

at 4 and ECF No. 52 at 6-7). 

The Court finds that the exhibit is relevant. A “court must deny the 

motion to strike if there is any doubt whether the allegations in the pleadings 

might be relevant in the action.” In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec Lit., 114 F 

Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS

that Defendants’ motion to strike the exhibit be DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the 

District Court issue an Order: (1) Approving and Adopting this Report and 

Recommendation; (2) GRANTING Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

request for injunctive relief; (3) DENYING Defendants’ motion to strike legal 

citations from the TAC; and (4) DENYING Defendants’ motion to strike the 

exhibit. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report 

must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 

September 8, 2016. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Report and Recommendation.” 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9 

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD 

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection shall be 

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than September 15, 

2016. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the 

Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 18, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 60 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9