Moore v. Department of Corrections

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, 966 F.3d 1094, 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
Case 5:24-cv-01168-G Document 22 Filed 08/26/25 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2025.
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, 2017 WL 3327087, at *4 (N.D. Ga. July 10, 2017).
Case 5:24-cv-01168-G Document 22 Filed 08/26/25 Page 2 of 2