Griffin v. Calderon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DATHAN A. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1432-PGB-LHP

LUIS F. CALDERON, MICHAEL MURPHY, ERIC J. NETCHER, JEFFREY L. ASHTON, STATE OF FLORIDA, JONATHAN J.A. PAUL, WEISSMAN PAUL, PLLC, THE CITY OF ORLANDO, CHRISTINE PEARSON, JENNIFER ELIZABETH KASCH and ZACHARY J. OXLEY,

Defendants

ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiff’s responses in opposition to three motions to dismiss. Doc. Nos. 175–77. In each of the responses, Plaintiff embeds a motion to strike the motion to dismiss at issue. Id. Upon review, to the extent that Plaintiff moves the Court to strike the motions to dismiss, the requests (Doc. Nos. 175–77) are DENIED. First, “[i]t is not appropriate to seek an order for affirmative relief in a response to a motion.” Armington v. Dolgencorp. Inc., No. 3:07-cv-1130-J-JRK, 2009 WL 210723, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2009). Second, to the extent the response embeds a motion, the requests fail to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Doc. Nos. 175-77. Third, Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) in support of the

requests. Doc. No. 175, at 6; Doc. No. 176, at 6; Doc. No. 177, at 6. But “Rule 12(f) does not apply because the motion to dismiss is not a pleading.” Edgerton v. City of St. Augustine, Fla., No. 3:20-cv-941-BJD-PDB, 2021 WL 1789368, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2021). Therefore, the Court will consider the filings (Doc. Nos. 175-77) solely as

responses in opposition to the motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 164-65, 168), which will be addressed in due course. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 24, 2025.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-