Pack v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RICHARD PACK, ) Plaintiff, . v. ‘No. 4:24-cv-01120-JAR OFFICER KEVIN JACKSON, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion to strike filed to self-represented Plaintiff Richard Pack. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff asks the Court to strike various filings on the docket that he claims exhibit mistakes. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that filings in the case, including Court orders, that refer to him as “RICHARD PACK” instead of “Richard Pack” and refer to Defendant as “OFFICER KEVIN JACKSON” rather than Plaintiff’s preferred “Kevin Jackson the Individual Proprietor” are somehow mistaken. According to Plaintiff, “[t]hese filings must be □ stricken and corrected in order to proceed,” though he provides no legal basis for this contention.

Plaintiff also does not make any reference to the standard by which the Court is to decide a motion to strike, nor does he cite to any case law supporting his position that these are, in fact, mistakes.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). While district courts have broad discretion in deciding on motions to strike, striking a pleading is a drastic remedy that is not favored and infrequently granted. Hogan v. Wal- Mart Stores E., LP, No. 4:21-CV-78 RLW, 2021 WL 3363149, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2021) (citations omitted).

None of the “mistakes” Plaintiff cites are sufficient to grant him the drastic remedy of striking pleadings. Simply put, there is no legal distinction between styling Plaintiffs name as “RICHARD PACK” versus “Richard Pack.” Similarly, the Court has already determined that Plaintiff is suing Defendant Kevin Jackson in his individual capacity (ECF No. 31 at 2,n.1), and any case header referring to Defendant as “OFFICER KEVIN JACKSON?” does not change the Court’s determination. Because Plaintiff has provided no legal or factual justification for striking the supposedly mistaken pleadings in this case, his motion will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Richard Pack’s motion to strike is DENIED.

ECF No. 38. .

Dated this 19th day of May, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE