UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DESIREE MOORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1168-G ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now before the Court is Plaintiff Desiree Moore’s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 16) along with a Supplement (Doc. No. 18) thereto. Defendants have filed a Response (Doc. No. 20), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff seeks to have Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) partially or wholly stricken from the record in this case. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1. Pursuant to 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). “Generally, motions, briefs, and memoranda may not be attacked by a motion to strike.” Bunn v. Perdue,

, 1099 (10th Cir. 2020) (omission and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff fails to show a proper basis to strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss from the record. The Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 16) is therefore DENIED.1

1 Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss within the time allowed under the Court’s local rules. To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motion, Supplement, and Reply IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2025.

CHARLES B. GOODWIN United States District Judge

present substantive arguments in opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Court will liberally construe those filings and consider those arguments as appropriate in disposing of the Motion to Dismiss. See Elliott v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 16-cv-4804,

, at *4 (N.D. Ga. July 10, 2017).