Rodriguez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS No. 1:24-cv-00285-JLT-SAB (PC)

HOWARD,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff, TO STRIKE ANSWER 13 v. (ECF No. 45)

RODRIGUEZ,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer, filed December 23, 2024. Although a defectively pled affirmative defense can be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which authorizes the removal of “an insufficient defense,” motions to strike such defenses are “regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Brooks v. Bevmo! Inc., et al., No. 20-CV-01216-MCE-DB, 2021 WL 3602152, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (quoting Dodson v. Gold Country Foods, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00336-TLN-DAD, 2013 WL 5970410 at * 1…