1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6| Tony Hines, Case No. 2:24-cv-00060-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s),v. Order 8] James Dzurenda, et al., [Docket No. 42] 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike. Docket No. 42.! Defendants filed 11] a response. Docket No. 47. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 48. Although not entirely clear from the motion, the reply clarifies that the motion to strike is brought pursuant to Rule 12(f) of 13] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket No. 48 at 2-3. That rule permits striking of 14] “pleadings,” not of motion papers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Assurance Co. of Am.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiff's 16] motion to strike is DENIED. Nonetheless, the Court will consider the arguments made in this 17] motion practice in conjunction with deciding the pending motion for sanctions (Docket No. 39) 18] and motion for relief under Rule 36 (Docket No. 40). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: December 4, 2025

22 Unite States pistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ ' The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are 28] prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea,

(9th Cir. 2013).