U.S. v. THOMPSON

FRANK DAMRELL, District Judge

This matter is before the court on motion by plaintiff, United State of America ("government") for Rule 11 sanctions against defendant Denise Thompson ("defendant") for allegedly filing frivolous papers with the court.

On November 18, 2003, defendant filed a Plea in Abatement with the court. This brief was virtually identical in substance to a Plea in Abatement filed by co-defendant Walter Thompson, the filing of which resulted in an order for Rule 11 sanctions against that defendant by this court on November 18, 2003. On December 10, 2003, the United States served on Denise Thompson a motion for Rule 11 Sanctions with supporting brief, requested that she withdraw the Plea in Abatement by December 31, 2003, and warned that if she failed to do so the United States would file the Rule 11 motion with the court. Defendant did not withdraw the plea in abatement and the United States subsequently filed the motion for Rule 11 sanctions with the court.

Rule 11 provides that the district court may impose sanctions upon attorneys or parties "[i]f, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated. . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c). As an initial inquiry, the district court must determine whether a violation of Rule 11(b) has occurred. See Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversing district court denial of Rule 11 sanctions against pro se litigant for failure to make initial determination that a violation of Rule 11 occurred.) If a violation is found, the court may in its discretion decide to impose sanctions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c); Guelker, 29 F.3d at 1388 N.1 (9th Cir. 1994). See also 2 Wm. J. Moore, Federal Practice § 11.23(2) (3d ed. 2003). Sanctions are limited to what is "sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2)(A). The court has broad discretion to choose the appropriate type of sanction to achieve the Rule's goal of deterring future violations. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962).

By its express terms, Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b); Guelker, 29 F.3d at 1389. A court can consider the party's pro se status in determining whether to impose sanctions and the nature and severity of sanctions to be imposed. However, the court cannot exempt a party from Rule 11 sanctions merely because he appears pro se. Id.

I. Rule 11(b) Violation

Pursuant to Rule 11, every pleading, motion, and other paper presented to the court must be signed by the attorney or an unrepresented party. By presenting to the court a pleading, motion or other paper, an attorney or party represents that "the claims, defenses and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a)(b), (b)(2). The certification requirements of Rule 11 are violated "if the paper filed . . . is frivolous, legally unreasonable or without factual foundation, even though . . . not filed in subjective bad faith." Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 831 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by, Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990). See also Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362-65 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc).

The language of 11(b) makes clear that pro se litigants are charged with a duty to make a reasonable inquiry of the facts and law before signing papers and submitting them to the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). Courts apply an objective standard in determining whether a party or attorney's inquiry was reasonable.Unigard Security Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Ing'g Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 370 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining the reasonableness of an investigation by a pro se litigant, the court may consider the problems associated with appearing without counsel. Committee Note to 1983 Amendment to Rule 11(b).

The United States claims that defendant violated Rule 11(b) when she filed his Plea in abatement because this pleading is "objectively frivolous" and filed "for no other reason than to harass and to cause unnecessary delay to these proceedings."

In its November 18, 2003 order imposing sanctions on co-defendant Walter Thompson, the court analyzed the content of the Plea in Abatement, concluding that it raised wholly frivolous and legally unreasonable arguments. The substance of the arguments asserted in the Plea in Abatement filed by defendant is identical to that filed by her husband, co-defendant Walter Thompson. Accordingly, the court finds that defendant violated Rule 11(b) by signing and presenting to the court the Plea in Abatement.

Where the court finds that a party violated Rule 11(b), it may, in its discretion impose sanctions sufficient to deter a repeated violation by defendant or others similarly situated. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c).

Here, defendants have repeatedly wasted the time and resources of the United States and this court responding to pleadings that wholly lack merit. The court therefore finds monetary sanctions necessary to deter defendants from filing additional such frivolous papers with the court.

For the reasons stated above, the court makes the following orders:

1) The clerk of the court is directed to STRIKE from the record the Plea in Abatement, filed by defendant Denise Thompson on November 18, 2003.

(2) Defendant Denise Thompson shall pay sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00. Defendant shall submit payment to the clerk of the court not later than thirty (30) days from the filing of this Order.