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 is Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant City of Orlando’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 166] and Incorporated Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss for Non-Compliance with Local Rules. Doc. No. 183. Upon review, to the extent that Plaintiff includes an embedded motion to strike the motion to dismiss, the motion (Doc. No. 183) is 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, the embedded motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g)._ Doc. No. 183. Third, Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) in support of the request. Id. at 7-9. 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 filing (Doc. No. 183) solely as a

response in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 166), which will be addressed in due course. See also Doc. No. 180. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 1, 2025.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-