Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06214-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES, SR., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DARREN SWEENEY, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

CV F 04 6214 AWI DLB 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

[DOC 45]

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is currently incarcerated in Wasco

State Prison. On September 7, 2004, he filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

action is proceeding against defendant Darren Sweeney of the Kings County Sheriff’s

Department on plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in the First Amended

Complaint filed on November 24, 2004. On February 16, 2006, defendant filed an answer to the

first amendment complaint. On March 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant’s

affirmative defenses on the grounds that they are “frivolous, insufficient and redundant.” 

Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on March 22, 2006.

DISCUSSION

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

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

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Before a motion to strike affirmative defenses may be granted, the Court

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 48 Filed 05/24/06 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

27

28

2

must be convinced that there are no questions of fact, that any questions of law are clear and not

in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances could the defense succeed. SEC v. Sands, 902

F.Supp. 1149, 1165 (CD CA 1995). 

Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense alleges that the First Amended Complaint, and

each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against

defendant. Because the court has already made a judicial determination as to whether the

allegations in the First Amended Complaint state a cause of action, defendant is not opposed to

the motion to strike the first affirmative defense. However, defendant reserves the right to

reassert the defense, if necessary, at a later date. 

The Second Affirmative Defense is based on qualified immunity. Government officials

enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The issue of qualified immunity cannot be determined at

the pleading stage where, as evidenced from plaintiff’s motion, there are factual matters that are

in dispute. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Second Affirmative Defense should therefore be

denied.

Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defense is based on California Penal Code Section 835,

which states that the person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his

arrest and detention. The reasonableness of defendant’s actions is the primary issue in this

Fourth Amendment case. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). Therefore, the

Court cannot, at the pleading stage, find that this defense cannot succeed as a matter of law. 

Defendant’s remaining affirmative defenses (Fourth through Ninth) include California

Government Code Section 820.2, comparative negligence, assumption of risk, third party

negligence, and failure to file a timely government claim pursuant to the Government Code. 

Because there are no remaining state law claims, defendant does not oppose the motion to strike

these state and common law affirmative defenses. 

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 48 Filed 05/24/06 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

27

28

3

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion be granted in

part. Based on defendant’s non-opposition, the court recommends that plaintiff’s motion to

strike the First, and Fourth through Ninth affirmative defenses be GRANTED. The court

recommends that the plaintiff’s motion to strike the Second and Third affirmative defenses be

DENIED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30)

days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the

Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06214-AWI-DLB Document 48 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 3