Summary
The document is an order and magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a state prisoner concerning alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement related to COVID-19. It grants a stipulated request to modify the discovery schedule and recommends granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants' first, fourth, seventh, and tenth affirmative defenses were improper denials of elements or damages allegations rather than affirmative defenses.
- Whether defendants' second, fifth, ninth, and eleventh affirmative defenses provided fair notice despite conclusory or fact-barren allegations.
- Whether defendants' third, sixth, eighth, and twelfth affirmative defenses were sufficiently pleaded to survive the motion to strike.
- Whether defendants could reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the future.
- Whether the parties' discovery and scheduling deadlines should be modified.
Holdings
- In the Ninth Circuit, affirmative defenses are subject to a fair-notice pleading standard rather than the heightened Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. Fair notice requires the defendant to state the nature and grounds of the defense and provide some factual basis, although the required detail is limited.
- Affirmative defenses that merely deny an element of the plaintiff's claim, deny liability for damages, or assert that the plaintiff suffered no injury are not proper affirmative defenses and should be stricken as redundant.
- A conclusory assertion that defendants' conduct was reasonably related to legitimate penological goals does not provide fair notice where the defense lacks a factual basis and its applicability to an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim is unclear.
- Qualified immunity, discretionary or good-faith immunity, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies were sufficiently pleaded to survive the motion to strike under the fair-notice standard.
- Contributory negligence, failure to mitigate damages, and independent or superseding cause are legally cognizable defenses, but conclusory allegations lacking facts connecting the defenses to the case fail to provide fair notice and may be stricken with leave to amend.
- A reservation of the right to assert additional affirmative defenses at a later date is not itself a proper affirmative defense and should be stricken without leave to amend.
Key quotations
“The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” (at 1)
“Fair notice ... requires that the defendant state the nature and grounds of the affirmative defense.” (at 2)
“An attempt to reserve affirmative defenses for a future date is not a proper affirmative defense in itself.” (at 11)
Factual background
Williams is a state prisoner who alleges that defendant Thomas threatened him with disciplinary action unless he transferred buildings, after which he was placed in a cell with a prisoner infected with COVID-19 and contracted COVID-19. Williams alleges that defendant Hill failed to intervene after being informed of the risk and that Thomas threatened further transfer in response to Williams's complaints and grievances. The action proceeds on Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims against Thomas and Hill.
Procedural history
Williams filed a § 1983 complaint on May 17, 2023, alleging Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violations arising from a transfer to housing with a COVID-infected prisoner and prison officials' alleged failure to intervene. The complaint was screened and found sufficient to proceed against defendants Thomas and Hill. Defendants answered on April 17, 2025, after settlement discussions failed, and Williams then moved to strike their thirteen affirmative defenses. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part, while separately granting the parties' stipulated request to modify the discovery and scheduling order.