Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02010/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02010-0/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

 The facts and legal standards are set forth in detail in this Court’s prior Report and

Recommendation [Doc. 19] (“12/23/08 Report”) and Order adopting the Report [Doc. 21]

(“3/30/09 Order”).

07cv2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESAU ROGERS,

CDC# P-54800

Plaintiff,

v.

S. RIVAS, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-2010-W (JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANT RIVAS’ ANSWER TO

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 40]

 Plaintiff Esau Rogers, a state prisoner at Centinela State Prison, brings this case

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights by improperly

searching his cell in retaliation for previous grievance claims.1

 The operative pleading is

his First Amended Complaint which, after the Court granted in part and denied in part

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, is now pending as to one defendant – Defendant S.

Rivas. (Doc. No. 32.) Rivas filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint. (Doc.

No. 33.) Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to strike Rivas’ Answer to the First Amended

Complaint. (Doc. No. 40.) Rivas opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 41.) Pursuant to

Civ.LR 72.3.4 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiff’s motion has been referred for report

Case 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA Document 43 Filed 05/10/10 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

2 07cv2010

and recommendation. As set forth below the undersigned RECOMMENDS the motion

be DENIED.

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

moot, irrelevant, or dilatory.” (Doc. No. 40-1, p. 5, see also p. 8 & 9.) Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(f) permits a court to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2), (3)

and 8(c), Rivas’ Answer specifically admits or denies the allegations made in the First

Amended Complaint that survived the motion to dismiss and asserts affirmative

defenses thereto. (Doc. No. 41.) Upon review, the Court does not find any insufficiently

pled defenses or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter that

would warrant striking the pleading. The undersigned, therefore, RECOMMENDS that

the Court issue an Order DENYING Plantiff’s Motion to Strike.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Thomas J.

Whelan, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all

parties on or before May 28, 2010. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.” Any response to the Objections shall be served and

filed on or before June 7, 2010. 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: May 10, 2010

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA Document 43 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 2