Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-cv-0031-DCC-TER
01-09-2023
MICHAEL FRASIER, # 215880, Plaintiff, v. DR. ALDEN, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 78) Defendant's Answer. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC. This report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant Dr. Alden is the only defendant remaining in this action. After a fairly lengthy procedural history regarding service of process on Defendant, he was finally served on May 22, 2022. See Summons Return (ECF No. 75). Defendant filed an Answer on June 6, 2022. See Answer (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff thereafter filed the present Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Answer, arguing that his claims against Defendant have merit and Defendant is not entitled to the defenses raised in the Answer.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant is required to file a pleading responsive to a plaintiff's complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12. Defendant timely filed his Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under the rules. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). Rule 12 allows the court, either on its own or by motion, to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). “Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor ‘because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.' ” Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 5A A. Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380, 647 (2d ed. 1990)). Thus, “the standard by which courts judge Rule 12(f) motions imposes a sizable burden on the movant.” W. Virginia Hosp. & Travel Ass'n, Inc. v. Southern, No. 2:16-cv-0184, 2019 WL 2387048, at *3 (S.D. W.Va. June 4, 2019) (quoting Clark v. Milam, 152 F.R.D. 66, 70 (S.D. W.Va. 1993)). Before striking a defense as insufficient, “a court must be convinced 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant's answer is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Rather, he argues that the facts he has alleged are true and he has evidence to prove his claims. However, “[a] motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is not a mechanism for deciding disputed issues of law or fact, especially where, as here, there has been no discovery, and the factual issues on which the motion to strike largely depends are disputed.” Riemer v. Chase Bank, N.A., 275 F.R.D. 492, 494 (N.D. Ill. 2011). A litigant's “argument that the allegations are false is irrelevant to [a] motion to strike” because “[w]hether they are true and supportable by admissible evidence will be borne out in discovery.” GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int'l, Inc., No. 1:09CV123 (JCC), 2009 WL 2160451, at *10 (E.D. Va. July 17, 2009). Plaintiff has failed to meet the “sizable burden” of showing 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.” W. Virginia Hosp. & Travel Ass'n, Inc., 2019 WL 2387048, at *3. Thus, his “motion to dismiss” Defendant's Answer is without merit.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 78) Defendant's Answer be denied.
The parties are directed to the important information on the following page.