Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hector Martin Prieto, an incarcerated plaintiff, is pursuing Eighth Amendment claims against Peter Dominguez and other defendants. After screening, the court allowed the claims to proceed. The action was stayed for a possible settlement, and when that process ended the court set July 13, 2026 as the deadline to answer. Defendants filed their answer on July 6.
Prieto moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike the answer. He objected to its numbered response format, argued that defendants should have presented evidence rather than admissions and denials, challenged a contributory-negligence affirmative defense because he said he was experiencing a medical emergency, and contended that defendants had effectively admitted liability by acknowledging federal jurisdiction. He also treated the earlier screening order as establishing that his constitutional rights had been violated.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge denied the motion in full. Rule 12(f) permits a court to remove an insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter, but motions to strike are generally disfavored. Defendants’ answer was timely because the operative deadline was the date set after the stay was lifted, not a date calculated from the filing of the second amended complaint. Filing one week before July 13 complied with that order.
The answer’s format also complied with Rule 8(b). A responding party may admit an allegation, deny it, or state that it lacks enough information to form a belief; it need not litigate the evidence in the pleading. Prieto’s factual disagreement with the contributory-negligence defense did not make that defense legally insufficient. The Ninth Circuit requires only fair notice stated in general terms, and Prieto’s own argument showed that he understood the defense. Without bad faith, the underlying factual contest belongs in ordinary merits adjudication rather than a motion to strike.
Finally, the court rejected Prieto’s view of jurisdiction and screening. Admitting subject-matter jurisdiction recognizes the court’s authority to hear the dispute; it does not concede that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Similarly, a prisoner screening order decides whether allegations plausibly state a claim that may proceed, not whether the allegations are true or defendants are liable. Because Prieto did not establish a merits basis to strike the answer, the court did not decide defendants’ alternative argument that his motion itself missed Rule 12(f)’s ordinary 21-day period. The source notes uncertainty about when Prieto received the answer and contains an apparent 2025 typographical date for his signature.
Key Takeaways
- A court-ordered response date following a stay controls over a litigant’s calculation from the complaint’s filing date.
- Rule 8(b) permits admissions, denials, and lack-of-knowledge responses; an answer is not required to argue evidence.
- A factual dispute over an affirmative defense ordinarily should be resolved through discovery, summary judgment, or trial, not Rule 12(f).
- An admission of federal jurisdiction says nothing about liability or the merits.
- Passing statutory screening means a claim is plausible enough to proceed; it is not a judgment that the plaintiff has proved the claim.
Why It Matters
The order is useful to California federal litigants because it separates pleading sufficiency from factual proof. Motions to strike are narrow tools, not substitutes for testing evidence. A party challenging an affirmative defense should identify a legal insufficiency or matter with no possible bearing on the case, rather than simply dispute the opponent’s account.
For self-represented prisoner litigants in particular, the decision clarifies two recurring procedural points. Screening opens the courthouse door but does not decide liability, and jurisdiction addresses judicial power rather than who should win. Those distinctions affect how parties should frame later motions and allocate limited litigation resources.