United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
(“Motion”),  which seeks to strike reference to sex
offenses committed by Plaintiff contained in Defendants'
Memorandum in Support of Second Motion for Summary
Judgment. and Statement of Undisputed
cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which provides
that “the court may order stricken from any pleading
any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Rule 12(f),
however, does not apply to Plaintiff's request, however,
because evidence submitted in support of a Rule 56 motion for
summary judgment is not considered a motion or pleading for
purposes of Rule 12.
were Rule 12(f) applied, the Court would deny the Motion.
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs by placing him in a suicide watch cell
with a top bunk notwithstanding an alleged threat that he
would harm himself by jumping from the top bunk. In support
of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants rely on
information regarding Plaintiff's prior sex offenses to
establish that Defendants had reason to doubt Plaintiff's
alleged assertions that he would harm himself.
decision of whether to strike evidence presented in support
or opposition to a motion for summary judgment is within the
discretion of the trial court. Further, motions to strike a
defense are generally disfavored and are infrequently
granted. A motion to strike should not be granted
unless the moving party demonstrates that denial of the
motion would be prejudicial to the moving
party. Finally, the court must deny a motion to
strike if there is a question of law or fact regarding a
Plaintiff has not met his heavy burden of establishing that
striking the evidence presented by Defendants regarding
sexual offenses committed by Plaintiff is appropriate.
Evidence of sexual offenses committed by Plaintiff is highly
relevant to the defense presented by Defendants;
namely, Defendants argue that Plaintiff was not placed in a
different cell due to his propensity for committing sexual
offenses while in these cells. The relevance of this evidence
would render striking same inappropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike be DENIED.
 R. Doc. 39.
 R. Doc. 36-1, pp. 5-7.
 R. Doc. 36-2, p. 2.
 See Shah v. Chertoff, No.
CIVA305-CV-1608-BHK, 2007 WL 2948362, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Oct.
10, 2007) citing York v. Ferris State Univ., 36
F.Supp.2d 976, 980 (W.D.Mich.1998) (holding that Rule 12(f)
only applies to “pleadings, ” which are not
affidavits); Carlson Mktg. Group, Inc. v. Royal Indem.
Co., 2006 WL 2917173, *2 (D.Minn. Oct.11, 2006) (neither
a memorandum nor an affidavit submitted in connection with a
motion for summary judgment is a pleading for purposes of
Rule 12(f)); Estate of Albritton v. U.S., 2001 WL
34046166 (M.D.La. Dec.10, 2001) (finding that affidavits
submitted in support of motion for summary judgment are not
pleadings subject the timeliness constraint imposed by Rule
 See Bryan v. Chertoff, 217
Fed.Appx. 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2007); see also McCulley v.
JTM Industries, Inc., 116 F.3d 1477 (5th Cir. 1997) (a
district court's decision to strike summary judgment
evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.
Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045,
1057 (5th Cir. 1982); FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F.Supp.
441, 449 (N.D. Tex. 1993) (“Both because striking a
portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy, and because it is
often sought by the movant as a dilatory tactic, motions
under Rule ...