Opinion
Civil Action 2:24-0027
11-26-2024
JAMES BUCHANAN, Plaintiff, v. INSTRUCTOR/OFFICER BRYNER, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 37) be denied.
II. Report
Plaintiff James Buchanan brings this pro se civil rights action in which he alleges that Defendant Instructor/Officer Bryner violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by assaulting him without provocation while he was a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Greene, Pennsylvania.
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which he seeks to strike three affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant in his Answer. For the reasons that follow, the motion should be denied.
A. Brief Procedural History
Plaintiff commenced this action in January 2024 by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion was granted and the Complaint was filed on January 16, 2024. (ECF No. 5).
Because Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint, a default was entered on August 6, 2024 (ECF No. 20). After Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, Defendant entered his appearance and moved to lift the default. This motion was granted on October 28, 2024 (ECF No. 33) and Defendant then filed an Answer to the Complaint (ECF No. 35). The Answer includes fifteen affirmative defenses.
On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for sanctions, contending that “the Defendant's Answer contains factual contentions that do not have evidentiary support, and will not have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(b)(3), specifically, Defendant's Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Affirmative Defenses.” (ECF No. 37 at 1.) Plaintiff moves the Court to strike these three affirmative defenses and requests $50.00 for “time, research, and the cost of copying and postage.” (Id. at 3.)
Defendant has responded to Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 39) and it is ripe for disposition.
B. Discussion
“There is limited and conflicting authority on whether Rule 11 is an appropriate vehicle for striking affirmative defenses.” Medina v. Haas, 2022 WL 2307098, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 27, 2022). As the court noted in Medina:
in 1983, the Advisory Committee removed one of Rule 11's original remedies: to strike a pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee on 1983 Amendments to Rules. The committee explained that motions to strike pleadings “generally present issues better dealt under Rules 8, 12, or 56.” Id. However, the amendment did not forbid courts from striking pleadings or motions under Rule 11.”Id. (quoting Advisory Committee Note). See also CT Install Am., LLC v. Boryszewski, 2024 WL 4582885, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2024) (noting that Rule 11 “is not properly used to sanction the inappropriate filing of papers where other rules more directly apply.”) In CT Install, the court declined to apply Rule 11 because Rule 12(f) “more directly applied” to a motion seeking to strike part of a pleading. Id.
Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may strike from a pleading an “insufficient defense.” “Striking a pleading is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice and should be used sparingly.” DeLa Cruz v. Piccari Press, 521 F.Supp.2d 424, 428 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). See also U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Gerber, 380 F.Supp.3d 429, 438 (M.D. Pa. 2018) (motions to strike are generally disfavored and rarely granted); Mifflinburg Telegraph, Inc. v. Criswell, 80 F.Supp.3d 566, 572 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (same).
In addition, “[t]he consensus of district courts in this circuit is that the heightened pleading standard under Twombly and Iqbal does not apply to such defenses.” U.S. Bank, 380 F.Supp.3d at 439. See Tyco Fire Prod. LP v. Victaulic Co., 777 F.Supp.2d 893, 900 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (“An affirmative defense need not be plausible to survive; it must merely provide fair notice of the issue involved.”).
Some courts have observed that Rule 8(a)(2) requires the pleader to state facts “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” while Rule 8(c)(1) only requires a party to “state” an affirmative defense. As these courts have explained, “‘stating' an affirmative defense provides ‘fair notice' without specific factual allegations for each element of the defense as long as the defense is logically within the ambit of the general factual allegations in the litigation.” Mifflinburg Tel., 80 F.Supp.3d at 574.
Here, the three affirmative defenses that Plaintiff moves to strike provided him with “fair notice” as to the defenses that Defendant is raising: the complained-of conduct was caused by third parties; Plaintiff's damages were caused by superseding, intervening causes; and Defendant acted in self-defense. Plaintiff challenges the factual basis for these defenses, but “[m]otions to strike should not be granted when the sufficiency of the defense depends upon disputed or undeveloped issues of fact.” Klaus v. Jonestown Bank & Tr. Co., 2014 WL 1024591, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2014) (citations omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff's argument that these defenses contradict one another is unavailing. As Rule 8(d)(3) provides, a party may state inconsistent defenses.
Thus, if the pleaded affirmative defenses would survive a Rule 12(f) motion to strike, then counsel cannot have acted unreasonably in asserting them. See Medina, 2022 WL 2307098, at *4 (denying Rule 11 motion when many of the defendant's affirmative defenses-including the defense that the incident was caused by the acts of third parties over whom the defendant had no control-could survive a Rule 12(f) motion). Moreover, “Rule 11 sanctions, the Third Circuit has stressed, should be imposed to penalize irresponsible lawyering, not to address the strength or merits of a claim.” StrikeForce Techs., Inc. v. WhiteSky, Inc., 2013 WL 5574643, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2013) (citing Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 94-95 (3d Cir. 1988))..
III. Conclusion
Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 37) be denied. Litigants who seek to challenge this Report and Recommendation must seek review by the district judge by filing objections by December 10, 2024. Any party opposing the objections shall file a response by December 24, 2024. Failure to file timely objections will waive the right of appeal.