Opinion
18 Civ. 6973 (KMK)(PED)
03-04-2022
EDWARD BRIMS, v. J. COLLADO, SUPT., Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.
By motion, dated December 29, 2021, Petitioner moved to strike portions of Respondent's Opposition. [Dkts. 45-46.] For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
This Court today issues a Report and Recommendation to the Honorable Kenneth Karas, recommending that this action be dismissed. Familiarity with that Report and Recommendation, and the procedural history set forth therein, is assumed. In the event that Judge Karas adopts this Court's recommendation, Petitioner's motion for strike is moot.
In any event, Petitioner's motion for a strike is without merit. Under Rule 12(1), a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). “Motions to strike are generally disfavored and granted only if there is a strong reason to do so.” Guzman v. Concavage Marine Const. Inc., 176 F.Supp.3d 330, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). Petitioner argues that the Respondent's statement that the Court did not initiate his self-representation should be stricken as misleading. [Dkt. 46.] Respondent's statement is neither redundant, immaterial, impertinent, nor scandalous, and as a result the statement will not be stricken.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall close Dkt. 45.