(PC) Tran v. Smith ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BINH CUONG TRAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00148-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 S. SMITH, et al., (ECF No. 56) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Binh Cuong Tran is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s first amended 20 complaint, filed on April 9, 2021. 21 I. 22 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 This action is currently proceeding against Defendants Munsel, Jericoff, Brown and 24 Garcia for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 25 Defendants Munsel and Jericoff filed an answer to the complaint on March 19, 2020.1 26 After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the Court issued the discovery and 27 28 1 Defendants Brown and Garcia’s answer is presented due on or before June 22, 2021. (ECF No. 66.) 1 scheduling order on July 29, 2020. 2 On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 39.) 3 On February 10, 2021, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations 4 recommending to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 42.) More 5 specifically, it was recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be granted to allow amendment to add an 6 Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against Defendants Brown and Garcia and to 7 deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add an equal protection claim. (Id.) 8 The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on March 10, 2021. (ECF No. 9 49.) 10 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 9, 2021. (ECF No. 53.) 11 As previously stated, on April 14, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s first 12 amended complaint. (ECF No. 56.) 13 On May 14, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ request to vacate the dispositive motion 14 deadline pending resolution of their motion to strike the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 63.) 15 On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Defendants’ motion to vacate the 16 dispositive motion deadline and opposed Defendants’ motion to strike the first amended 17 complaint.2 (ECF No. 67.) 18 II. 19 DISCUSSION 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a pleading may be stricken because it 21 includes “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 22 “Motions to strike may be granted if ‘it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no 23 possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.’” Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 24 170 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citations omitted). A matter is immaterial if it “has no essential or 25 important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. 26 Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds by, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). A 27 2 The Court will address Plaintiff’s objections by way of separate order after the time for Defendants to file a 28 response has expired. 1 matter is impertinent if it consists of statements that do not pertain to and are not necessary to the 2 issues in question. Id. Redundant matter is defined as allegations that “constitute a needless 3 repetition of other averments or are foreign to the issue.” Thornton v. Solutionone Cleaning 4 Concepts, Inc., No. 06–1455, 2007 WL 210586 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007), citing Wilkerson v. 5 Butler, 229 F.R.D. at 170. 6 Motions to strike are generally viewed with disfavor, and will usually be denied unless the 7 allegations in the pleading have no possible relation to the controversy, and may cause prejudice 8 to one of the parties. See 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d 9 1380; see also Hanna v. Lane, 610 F.Supp. 32, 34 (N.D. Ill. 1985). If the court is in doubt as to 10 whether the challenged matter may raise an issue of fact or law, the motion to strike should be 11 denied for later determination of the sufficiency of the allegations on the merits. See 12 Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973075 (9th Cir.2010); see also 5A Wright 13 & Miller, at 1380. Whittlestone noted the distinction between Rule 12(f) and Rule 12(b)(6) and 14 held that Rule 12(f) does not authorize district courts to strike claims for damages on the ground 15 that such claims are precluded as a matter of law. Id. at 976. The Court reasoned that Rule 12(f) 16 motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, whereas 12(b)(6) motions are reviewed de novo. 17 Id. at 974 Thus, if a party seeks dismissal of a pleading under Rule 12(f), the district court's 18 action would be subject to a different standard of review than if the district court had adjudicated 19 the same substantive action under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. 20 “With a motion to strike, just as with a motion to dismiss, the court should view the 21 pleading in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, 22 Inc., 352 F.Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2004). “Ultimately, whether to grant a 23 motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Cruz v. Bank of N.Y. 24 Mellon, No. 12-cv-00846, 2012 WL 2838957, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (citing 25 Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d at 973. 26 The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in part, allowing Plaintiff to 27 amend to attempt to assert an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Brown and Garcia, 28 and denying Plaintiff leave to amend to add an Equal Protection claim. (ECF No. 49.) 1 Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly included an equal protection claim, and 2 expanded his allegations against Defendants Munsel and Jericoff, which was not sought by 3 Plaintiff, nor permitted by the Court. (Mot. at 3, ECF No. 56.) 4 Defendants Munsel and Jericoff do not explain how the factual allegations against them as 5 presented in the first amended complaint are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous,” 6 as required for an order granting their Rule 12(f) motion. In addition, Defendants Munsel and 7 Jericoff fail to demonstrate that they will be prejudiced by the additional factual allegations 8 presented in the first amended complaint. Moreover, there is no showing that the factual 9 allegations have no bearing on the subject matter of this litigation. Furthermore, although the 10 Court did not expressly allow Plaintiff to amend as to Defendants Munsel and Jericoff, given the 11 liberality of amendment and the fact that the parties have engaged in merits-based discovery, the 12 Court finds good cause to allow the amendment. The factual allegations, apparently disclosed 13 during discovery, do not raise a new claim but rather elaborate on the deliberate indifference 14 claim already found to be cognizable. While Defendants contend “[a]llowing the expanded 15 allegations will necessarily require that this case essentially start from scratch,” they fail to 16 specifically demonstrate how Plaintiff’s position has changed or how they will be prejudiced. See 17 Park v. Welch Foods, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-06449-PSG, 2014 WL 1231035, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18 20, 2014) (“Any doubt concerning the import of the allegations to be stricken weighs in favor of 19 denying the motion to strike.”) Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike the first amended 20 complaint as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Munsel and Jericoff shall 21 be denied. 22 However, Defendants are correct that the allegations relating to an Equal Protection claim 23 should be stricken. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges violations of the Equal Protection 24 Clause. However, the Court previously dismissed and denied amendment as to any claim 25 premised on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and expressly emphasized that Plaintiff’s 26 motion to amend was denied as to such claim. (ECF No. 49 at 2.) Thus, contrary to the Court's 27 specific instructions, Plaintiff impermissibly added an entirely new cause of action against 28 Defendants under the Equal Protection Clause that was previously dismissed. Therefore, the 1 | Court will strike the portion of Plaintiff's first amended complaint that alleges violations of the 2 | Equal Protection Clause. See Allen v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. CV 07-102-R (SH), 2009 WL 3 | 666449, *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2009) (“this defective claim [which was previously dismissed 4 | with prejudice] is specious and should be stricken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)”); Lamumba 5 | Corp. v. City of Oakland, No. C 05-2712 MHP, 2006 WL 3086726, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2006) 6 | (“if plaintiffs have re-asserted claims that were dismissed with prejudice ... these defective claims 7 || are specious and will be stricken”). 8 Il. 9 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs first amended complaint is granted as to 12 Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim and denied as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment 13 claim; and 14 2. Plaintiff's factual allegations relating to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause 15 are stricken from the first amended complaint, filed on April 9, 2021. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ (Se 1g | Dated: _ May 25, 2021 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28