Waddle v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AUDRIA WADDLE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-409-G
)
DHS/CPS also known as )
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Audria Waddle, appearing pro se, initiated this civil lawsuit on April 9,
2025, bringing multiple claims against Defendant DHS/CPS. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1).
On June 18, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9), arguing that
the relief sought by Plaintiff is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, that the Court should
abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and, in the alternative, that
dismissal is warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). On June 20, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike from Record (Doc. No. 12). In that Motion, Plaintiff
primarily asks the Court to strike from the record Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 9-1). The Motion also contains substantive arguments in opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff also has filed a Motion for Dismissal of Lack of
Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 13), which also contains substantive arguments in opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s request to have Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss stricken from the record is DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Case 5:25-cv-00409-G Document 16 Filed 06/25/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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); see also
Elliott v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 16-cv-4804, 2017 WL 3327087, at *4 (N.D.
Ga. July 10, 2017). Applying these authorities, the Court sees no basis to strike the
referenced exhibit from the record.
Regarding the substantive arguments opposing dismissal that are made by Plaintiff
in the two motions (Doc. No. 12 and Doc. No. 13), the Court will consider those arguments
collectively as Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiff wishes
to present any additional response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, she may file a
supplemental brief on or before July 2, 2025.
Plaintiff also has filed a Motion for Ex Parte Emergency Injunction (Doc. No 15),
seeking to have her children removed from the custody of Defendant and returned to her
immediately. Defendant is DIRECTED to file any response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex
Parte Emergency Injunction (Doc. No. 15) no later than July 2, 2025. Following receipt of
Defendant’s response, and evaluation of the jurisdictional issues raised by Defendant in its
Motion to Dismiss, the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required as
to the motion for injunctive relief.
Plaintiff’s request that her pleading be amended so that the claim for relief includes
the “immediate return of [her] children” (Doc. Nos. 10, 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
Case 5:25-cv-00409-G Document 16 Filed 06/25/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DEEMED AMENDED to include the immediate return of
Plaintiff’s children as an item of relief sought by Plaintiff in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00409-G Document 16 Filed 06/25/25 Page 3 of 3