Summary
This federal district court order denies a pro se prisoner’s multiple motions to strike defendants’ filings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and 11(c). The plaintiff, proceeding in a civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, claimed that defense counsel engaged in misdirection and improperly increased litigation costs. The magistrate judge found that the defendants' submissions did not meet the standard for striking or sanctioning, noted the plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 11's safe-harbor provision, and cautioned against future similar motions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's motions to strike under Rule 12(f) and Rule 11(c) should be granted
Holdings
- The court denied all motions to strike because the filings did not meet the Rule 12(f) standard and no sanctionable conduct was shown.
Key quotations
“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter ...””
““Motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted.””
Factual background
Plaintiff Edward Stenberg, a prisoner housed at Lakeland or Thumb Correctional Facility in Michigan, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He moved to strike various defendants' filings, claiming they were redundant, immaterial, or harassing.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed several motions to strike defendants' filings under Rule 12(f) and Rule 11(c); the court denied all motions.