United States District Court, D. Idaho
MICHAEL T. HAYES, Plaintiff,
v.
RACHEL NETTLES; MICHAEL MONTGOMERY; AND CHARLES JOHANNESSEN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO
STRIKE
David
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff Michael T. Hayes' Motion to
Strike. Dkt. 76. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the
Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further
delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Court will decide the motion without oral argument. Dist.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For reasons set forth below,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.
II.
BACKGROUND
On
December 12, 2016, Plaintiff Michael T. Hayes filed a
Complaint alleging that, while incarcerated at Idaho Maximum
Security Institution, Defendant Correctional Officers Rachel
Nettles, Michael Montgomery, and Charles Johannessen
(collectively “Defendants”) severely beat him,
causing serious injuries.
On
October 26, 2017, Defendants filed their answer to Hayes'
Complaint.[1]
On May
10, 2019, the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated Hayes' state
judgment of conviction for battery on a correctional officer
and remanded the case back to the district court for a new
trial. It did so on the grounds that the district court 1)
erred in failing to issue subpoenas for two medical
professionals upon Hayes' pre-trial request and 2) abused
its discretion in admitting multiple instances of Hayes'
prior conduct which necessarily affected the jury's
perception of Hayes' credibility. State v.
Hayes, No. 45601, 2019 BL 169904 (Idaho Ct. App. May 10,
2019).
On May
31, 2019, Hayes mailed to the Court the pending Motion to
Strike. Dkt. 76. His motion was formally docketed on June 4,
2019.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule
12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the
court to strike from “any pleading any insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). The purpose of
a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the costs that arise from
litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues
prior to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins
Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). A defense
may be found “insufficient” as a matter of
pleading or as a matter of substance. With respect to
substantive insufficiency, a motion to strike a defense is
proper “when the defense is insufficient as a matter of
law.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v.
Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057
(5th Cir. 1982). Rule 12(f) motions are “generally
regarded with disfavor[.]” Neilson v. Union Bank of
Cal., 290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003). See
also Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp.
1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“[M]otions to strike
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.”). Whether to grant a motion
to strike is within the courts' discretion. See
Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974
(9th Cir. 2010).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Hayes
seeks to strike Defendants' Third Affirmative Defense,
which asserts that “Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Nettles are barred by the United State Supreme
Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994).” Dkt. 36, at 3. He argues that this Third
Affirmative Defense is legally insufficient in light of the
Idaho Court of Appeals' May 10, 2019 decision.
Defendants
contend that Hayes' motion to strike should be denied
because it is untimely and premature. In its decision, the
Idaho Court of Appeals vacated Hayes' state conviction
and remanded the case back to the district court for a new
trial for evidentiary reasons. Defendants argue that even if
Hayes is acquitted, that would go to the factual support for
the affirmative defense, but “does not make asserting
it ‘redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.'” Dkt. 76, at 3 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(f)).
1.
...