Opinion
Civil Action 21-208
08-11-2021
KEITH ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PA; WESTMORELAND COUNTY COMMISSIONER; WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON; WARDEN WALTON; DEPUTY WARDEN LOWTHER; DEPUTY WARDEN SCHWARZ; LIEUTENANT TOMASELLO; LIEUTENANT WOLFF; SERGEANT GILLETTE; SERGEANT BRADLEY; JOHN DOE 1-6. Defendants.
Hon. Robert J. Colville, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: ECF No. 14
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Westmoreland County Prison be stricken from the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 14.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff Keith Rosario (“Plaintiff”)is an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (“SCI-Albion”). ECF No. 1 at 2. He initiated the instant lawsuit by filing the Complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which were received on February 8, 2021. ECF Nos. 1 and 4. In forma pauperis status was granted on April 9, 2021. ECF No. 3.
On May 14, 2021, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that all of Plaintiff's claims in the initial Complaint be dismissed, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(e)(2)(B)(ii). ECF No. 10 at 1. The Report recommended that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Westmoreland County Prison be dismissed with prejudice, as they were duplicative of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Westmoreland County, PA. Id. It was recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend all other claims. Id.
Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and Judge Colville issued an order on June 8, 2021, adopting the same as the Court's opinion. ECF No. 11. In the Order of June 8, Judge Colville confirmed that Defendant Westmoreland County Prison was dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 2.
On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff timely submitted an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 14. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again raises claims against Westmoreland County Prison. See, e.g., id. ¶ 5.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike “an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). “The purpose of a motion to strike is to clean up the pleadings, streamline litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial matters.” Craker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 1671634, at *5 (W.D. Pa. May 3, 2011) (citation omitted). Rule 12(f) explicitly contemplates that a court may act on its own. “Motions to strike are committed to the discretion of the district court, but usually will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy, will cause prejudice, or will confuse the issues in the case.” Id. (citing Adams v. County of Erie, Pa., 2009 WL 4016636, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov.19, 2009)).
Defendant Westmoreland County Prison was dismissed with prejudice from this case by Judge Colville's Order of June 8, 2021. ECF No. 11 at 2. Plaintiff's continued attempt to raise claims against Westmoreland County Prison is immaterial to this case. Allowing those claims to proceed against Westmoreland County Prison would unfairly prejudice that party, because it already has been dismissed with prejudice. Striking Plaintiff's claims against Westmoreland County Prison will streamline this case by removing a party that already has been dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Westmoreland County Prison should be stricken.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Westmoreland County Prison be stricken from the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 14.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).
Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.