Ivan Kilgore v. J. Doss, et al.

Opinion

IVAN KILGORE, Case No. 2:25-cv-3316-TLN-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. DOSS, et al., Defendants. Defendants filed their answer to plaintiff’s complaint on May 29, 2026. ECF No. 14. In their prayer for relief, defendants requested attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs. Id. at 9. Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike these requests, arguing that they are improper because their award would be inconsistent with my finding, on screening, that his complaint states cognizable claims. ECF No. 16. Defendants have filed an opposition. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. First, there is no reason to litigate this issue now, before it is ripe and material. Motions to strike are disfavored and matters should be, whenever possible, decided on their merits. See Pease v. Curren Ref., Inc. v. Spectrolab, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 945, 947 (C.D. Cal. 1990); Patapoff v. Vollstedt’s, Inc., 267 F.2d 863, 865 (9th Cir. 1959). Here, plaintiff has not articulated any advantage or rationale for why this issue should weighed now rather than when (or if) it arises in the natural course of litigation. Second, the Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 12(f) motion is an inappropriate vehicle for striking “claims for damages on the ground that such claims are precluded as a matter of law.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2010). And other courts have applied this holding to deny a party’s request to strike requests for attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 12(f). See Dawson v. Napa Cnty., No. 25-cv-01923-JSC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143205, *13 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2025). Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff's motion to strike, ECF No. 16, be DENIED. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: _ August 11, 2026 Q_——_ JEREMY D. PETERSON 59 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE