The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiffs Robert Morris and Michelle Morris ("Plaintiffs") are proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs filed a seventh amended complaint ("SAC") on September 14, 2010. (Doc. 82). Defendants filed an answer to the SAC on September 27, 2010.
Currently before the court is Defendants' motion to strike a document entitled "seventh amended complaint" filed by Plaintiffs on October 6, 2010. (Docs. 98). Plaintiffs filed opposition to Defendants' motion to strike on November 12, 2010. (Doc. 100).
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on September 23, 2008. (Doc. 1). After several incarnations of the complaint were dismissed, Plaintiffs filed a sixth amended complaint on June 24, 2010. (Doc. 82).
Defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth amended complaint was heard on September 13, 2010. During the September 13 hearing, the court told Plaintiffs on the record that their sixth amended complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend. (Doc. 88). The court advised the parties that it would issue a written decision on the motion to dismiss, and that Plaintiff would have fourteen days from the date of service of the written decision to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 88). The next day, on September 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the SAC. (Doc. 89).
The court issued a Memorandum Decision dismissing Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint on September 21, 2010. (Doc. 90).*fn1 Defendants filed an answer to the SAC on September 27, 2010. (Doc. 92).
On October 6, 2010, Plaintiffs' filed a document entitled "seventh amended complaint" and a "request to the court and amended complaint as ordered" ("the Request"). (Docs. 96, 97). The Request appears to be a request for leave to file an eighth amended complaint. (See Doc. 97).
Rule 12(f) empowers a court to strike "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Motions to strike may be granted if "it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation." LeDuc v. Kentucky Central Life Ins. Co., 814 F.Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992); Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). "[T]he function of a [F.R.Civ.P.] 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from ...