United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff Calvin Burke's
("Burke") Motion to Strike Answers/Pleadings Out of
Time (ECF No. 105), Burke's Motion for Discovery
Extension (ECF No. 108), Burke's Motion for Entry of
Default (ECF No. 110), Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 114), and Defendants' Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs "Material Facts Not in Dispute" (ECF No.
122). These matters are fully briefed and ready for
lawsuit arises from his confinement at the Medium Security
Institution ("MSI"), also known as the
"Workhouse, " against Defendants in their
individual capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42
U.S.C. §2000cc. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint
contains eight separate counts: Count I "42 U.S.C.
§1983"; Count II "First Amendment
Violations"; Count III "Fourth Amendment
Violations, " i.e., the strip search policy at
MSI was unconstitutional; Count IV "Due Process
Violation of the Fifth Amendment"; Count V
"Deliberate Indifference to Safety and Health";
Count VI "Custom and Usage"; Count VII
"Violation of Equal Protection and Due Process Under the
Fourteenth Amendment, " and Count VIII "42 USC
alleges that the accommodations at MSI were unsatisfactory
because MSI was unsanitary and the heating system
malfunctioned. Burke also complains about the quality of the
food service at MSI because it did not conform to nutritional
and caloric standards, and Defendants interfered with his
access to kosher meals. Burke alleges that inmates at MSI
were encouraged to engage in "gladiator style
battles." Burke alleges that Defendants' strip
search policy is unconstitutional because he was searched in
the presence of "homosexuals, sexual predators, and
known sex offenders, " without privacy partitions, and
that the searches occurred on a floor made wet from leaking
toilets and urinals. Burke complains that the disciplinary
process at MSI was unfair and he was confined to segregation
for 5 days longer than his sentence. Burke further alleges
that Defendants Gray, Glass, Edwards, Harry, Fields, Earvin,
and Weber were policy-makers who acquiesced to various
unsatisfactory conditions at MSI and/or ignored his
MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWERS/PLEADINGS
argues that Defendant Peterson belatedly filed his answers to
Burke's Complaint and, therefore, Burke has been
"extremely prejudiced" by Peterson's failure to
respond to the Complaint in a timely manner. (ECF No. 105).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides, "The court may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter." "Because the rule is stated in the
permissive, however, it has always been understood that the
district court enjoys 'liberal discretion'
thereunder." Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221
F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Thor Corp. v.
Automatic Washer Co., 91 F.Supp. 829, 832 (D.C. Iowa
1950); F.D.I.C v. Niblo, 821 F.Supp. 441, 449 (N.D.
Tex. 1993)). Despite this broad discretion however, striking
a party's pleadings is an extreme measure, and, as a
result, the Eighth Circuit has previously held that
"[m]otions to strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) are viewed
with disfavor and are infrequently granted."
Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229 (8th
Cir.1977) (citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure: Civil § 1380 at 783 (1969)). See
also, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gibson, 829 F.Supp.
1103, 1106 (W.D. Mo. 1993); 2 James Wm. Moore et al.,
Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37 (3d ed.
2000) ("Courts disfavor the motion to strike, because it
'proposes a drastic remedy.'").
Court holds that Burke has not demonstrated any prejudice
that would warrant the Court striking Defendant
Peterson's pleadings. Burke has not identified any
discovery that he was not allowed to conduct or any other
disadvantage as a result of Peterson's late-filed
pleadings. As a result, the Court denies Burke's Motion
to Strike Answers/Pleadings Out of Time(ECFNo. 105).
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY EXTENSION
filed a Motion for Discovery Extension (ECF No. 108). Burke
requests that this Court "obtain non-privileged
discovery matter previously requested which is relevant to
prove [plaintiffs] case." (ECF No. 108 at 1). Burke
requested information regarding the following:
• Captain Erwin's weekly inspection and
documentation of repairs needed in the jails;
• requests for work written by correctional officers on
• documentation of the shift commander calling the
maintenance supervisor for repairs because of extreme
coldness from 2005-2015;
• documentation regarding the floor supervisory shift
commander's requests for extra clothing and ...