PLATT v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OHIO & INDIANA

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL PLATT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB
)
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OHIO &
INDIANA,
)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Michael Platt's ("Mr. Platt") Motion to
Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. Dkt. 35. For the reasons stated below, that motion must
be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2025, we granted Mr. Platt's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and allowed this action to proceed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Mr. Platt brought this civil
rights action against Defendant Volunteers of America Ohio & Indiana ("VOA"), a nonprofit
organization that "contracts with the Bureau of Prisons to supervise and provide services to
individuals transitioning from federal incarceration." Compl. 1–2, dkt. 1. According to the
Complaint, VOA unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Platt on the basis of his race and
unjustifiably retaliated against him by revoking his work privileges, by issuing a fabricated
disciplinary report, and by threatening to reinstate a GPS monitoring system.
VOA's operative answer, filed on April 22, 2026, asserts eight affirmative defenses, dkt.
34, seven of which Mr. Platt moved to strike on April 28, 2026, dkt. 35. VOA filed a response in
Case 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 07/27/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
opposition on May 12, 2026. Dkt. 37. Mr. Platt has filed no reply, and the time for doing so has
long since elapsed. Accordingly, Mr. Platt's Motion to Strike is ripe for ruling.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), "the court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(f). Motions to strike are generally disfavored, but when striking portions of a pleading
"remove[s] unnecessary 	clutter from the case," the motion may "serve to expedite, not
delay." Heller v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). However, "a
court ordinarily will not strike affirmative defenses unless such defenses "patently defective and
could not succeed under any circumstances." Mobley v. Kelly Kean Nissan, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 726,
732 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Likewise, because affirmative defenses are subject to federal pleading
requirements, they "must set forth a 'short and plain statement' of all the material elements of the
defense asserted; bare legal conclusions are not sufficient." Heller, 883 F.2d at 1294; Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a).
DISCUSSION
VOA's Amended Answer contains the following affirmative defenses:
1. 	Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. . . .
3. 	Plaintiff is seeking to recover more than he is entitled to recover in this case,
and award of the judgment sought by Plaintiff would unjustly enrich Plaintiff.
4. 	To the extent Plaintiff seeks equitable relief (including "corrective policy
enforcement"), such relief is barred or limited by the doctrine of unclean hands
to the extent Plaintiff's own conduct relating to the matters alleged makes
equitable relief inappropriate.
Case 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 07/27/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
5. 	To the extent Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, such relief is barred or limited to
the extent Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and Defendant was
prejudiced by that delay.
6. 	Plaintiff's claims are barred or limited to the extent Plaintiff, by words or
conduct, knowingly waived rights alleged here or induced Defendant to
reasonably rely on Plaintiff's conduct to Defendant's detriment.
7. 	Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent any portion of the claims or alleged
damages were resolved, released, or satisfied by agreement, payment, or other
satisfaction.
8. 	Plaintiff's requests for punitive or other discretionary relief are barred or limited
to the extent Plaintiff pursued any claim or allegation with knowledge of falsity
or for an improper purpose.
Def.'s Am. Answer 4–5, dkt. 34.
In moving to strike VOA's affirmative defenses, Mr. Platt contends that each is legally
insufficient on its face, fails to provide fair notice, and reflects an attempt to inject immaterial and
impertinent matters into this litigation. Dkt. 35. Before turning to Mr. Platt's arguments, we note
that he filed a separate memorandum of law outlining a so-called "Five-Step Presumption
[R]ebuttal" framework, which purports to assess the legal sufficiency of VOA's affirmative
defenses in accordance with "Statutes at Large," "exact Congressional Record[s]," and the holdings
from various Supreme Court decisions. Dkt. 36 at 1. We need not delve into the specifics of Mr.
Platt's "Five-Step Presumption Rebuttal" framework, since it neither comports with the controlling
legal standard articulated above nor is particularly helpful to our analysis below. We turn to the
challenged affirmative defenses seriatim.
Case 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 07/27/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Affirmative Defense 1: Failure to State a Claim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(2)(A) expressly permits a defendant to assert the
defense of failure to state a claim in a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). Indeed, failure to
state a claim "is a nonwaivable defense that may be asserted at any time." Leonard v. Trs. of Indiana
Univ., No. 1:19-CV-00963-JRS-MJD, 2019 WL 3306181, at *2 (S.D. Ind. July 23, 2019).
Defendants, such as VOA here, are permitted by our pleading rules to preserve such a defense
within a responsive pleading, with the caveat that the court will not rule on the merits unless and
until the arguments are properly presented by motion. Id. Mr. Platt's request that we strike VOA's
first affirmative defense is therefore premature, and we deny it accordingly.
Affirmative Defenses 3, 7, & 8: Damages
VOA's third affirmative defense contends that Mr. Platt's demand for ($250,000 in)
damages would result in his unjust enrichment. Similarly, VOA's seventh and eighth affirmative
defenses assert that Mr. Platt's recovery of damages should be limited "to the extent" that such
awards are precluded by Mr. Platt's prior release of such entitlements and/or by Mr. Platt's improper
motive in initiating this litigation. Whether or to what extent VOA might ultimately prevail on
these arguments cannot be conclusively resolved at this juncture, and Mr. Platt has not established
that VOA's assertion of these affirmative defenses is otherwise "patently defective" such that
granting his motion to strike is warranted or appropriate. In any event, VOA's affirmative defenses
"will bear no weight until damages have been awarded," meaning that striking them at this stage
would be premature. Leonard, 2019 WL 3306181, at *3.
Affirmative Defenses 4, 5, & 6: Equitable Defenses
The fourth, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses relate to the equitable defenses of unclean
hands, laches, and waiver/estoppel. Mr. Platt argues that VOA's equitable defenses should be
Case 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 07/27/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
stricken because his pleading asserts "legal," as opposed to equitable, claims. He also contends
that VOA has not alleged sufficient facts that plausibly support its equitable defenses.
With regard to Mr. Platt's first argument, VOA correctly points out that Mr. Platt himself
seeks equitable relief in this action. See Compl. 4, dkt. 1 (asserting request for "corrective policy
enforcement"). It is well established that equitable defenses can be asserted against claims for
equitable relief, such as that sought by Mr. Platt here. See Scheiber v. Dolby Lab'ys, Inc., 293 F.3d
1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we discern no fundamental error in VOA's assertion of
equitable affirmative defenses, and Mr. Platt's argument to the contrary is unavailing.
Mr. Platt's remaining argument concerning the sufficiency of VOA's factual allegations
requires closer scrutiny. Mr. Platt argues that VOA's unclean hands, laches, and waiver/estoppel
defenses lack supporting factual allegations of what Mr. Platt did or failed to do that precludes his
recovery. A basic tenet of federal pleading rules is that parties must have "fair notice of what . . .
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). VOA's failure to describe which aspects of Mr. Platt's alleged misconduct rise to the level
of its various equitable defenses arguably falls short of satisfying this basic pleading requirement.
That said, we are not persuaded that Mr. Platt's motion to strike is warranted or appropriate,
since "most of the relevant facts underlying these affirmative defenses will likely arise from [Mr.
Platt's] own conduct, of which [Mr. Platt] already has full knowledge." Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Assocs.
of Triangle, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-01523-SEB-KMB, 2025 WL 2374409, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 14,
2025). As VOA concedes, further discovery is necessary in order to develop the underlying factual
bases of these equitable theories. We find that the more prudent approach here "is to defer the[se]
issue[s] until a later stage of the proceedings," when the record is more fully developed and the
parties have presented more robust arguments. Id. See also United States v. Martell, 844 F. Supp.
Case 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 07/27/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
454, 457 (N.D. Ind. 1994) ("If a defense may be relevant, then there are other contexts in which
the sufficiency of the defense can be more thoroughly tested with the benefit of a fuller record—
such as on a motion for summary judgment.").
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Mr. Platt's Motion to Strike is hereby DENIED. Dkt. 35. This matter
shall proceed accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
Distribution:
MICHAEL PLATT
750 Third Avenue
Ste. 1042
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Chloe Nicole Craft
Krieg DeVault
ccraft@kdlegal.com
Rachel J. Guin
Krieg DeVault, LLP
rguin@kdlegal.com
7/27/2026	_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:25-cv-01866-SEB-KMB Document 46 Filed 07/27/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>