WRIGHT v. UNITED STATES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Appeal No. 83-1193.

Attorney(S)

Robert J. Wright, pro se. John W. Showalter, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and George M. Beasley, III, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.

Judges

Marion Tinsley Bennett

Acts

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — Fees And Costs — Procedure — Damages And Costs On Affirmance

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a breach of contract claim initially filed in the United States Claims Court. The Claims Court previously issued a published order requiring plaintiffs to file an amended petition specifying the matters to be litigated, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Although an amended petition was filed, the defendant was unable to verify the allegations, prompting motions for summary judgment and remand for discovery. Despite discovery efforts, the defendant found plaintiffs' responses unintelligible and moved again for summary judgment. The Claims Court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the petition. The court noted plaintiffs' persistent bad faith and deliberate obfuscation, which frustrated the orderly conduct of the case and wasted judicial resources. The court also questioned the plaintiffs' standing to sue. The appellant, Robert J. Wright, appeals this dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Claims Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with court orders and inability to present a coherent claim.
Whether the appellant, Robert J. Wright, had standing to sue as a stockholder of the alleged corporation or trust.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Beachboard v. United States, 727 F.2d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1984)	Sanctions for abuse of judicial process	Supports awarding costs and damages against appellant for frivolous litigation
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 220 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1983)	Sanctions and procedural rules enforcement	Reinforces court's authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance and frivolous claims
Collins v. Amoco Production Co., 706 F.2d 1114 (11th Cir. 1983)	Judicial sanctions for abuse of process	Used to justify sanctions against appellant
United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1983)	Sanctions for litigant misconduct	Supports imposition of penalties for obstructive litigation tactics
Asberry v. United States Postal Service, 692 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1982)	Enforcement of procedural rules and sanctions	Affirms court’s discretion in sanctioning litigants for noncompliance
United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379 (2d Cir. 1982)	Sanctions for frivolous litigation	Supports awarding damages and costs against appellant

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the procedural history and noted the Claims Court's extensive patience with plaintiffs, who appeared pro se. The Claims Court found plaintiffs' pleadings and discovery responses to be vague, incomplete, and virtually incomprehensible, reflecting a persistent bad faith course of conduct that obstructed the orderly progress of the case. The court emphasized the considerable judicial resources and government time wasted due to plaintiffs' disregard for court orders. Although the court acknowledged allegations of fraud and forgery, it found it unnecessary to rely on these to affirm the dismissal. The court concluded that the abuse of the judicial process was sufficiently egregious to justify summary judgment and dismissal, and that appellant Wright lacked standing to sue. The court also cited statutory and procedural rules authorizing sanctions for such conduct, thereby supporting the imposition of costs and damages.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

The court affirmed the Claims Court's dismissal of the petition and granted the government double its allowable costs plus $500 in damages, to be paid by Robert J. Wright. This decision directly resolves the dispute by terminating the litigation against the government and penalizing the appellant for his abusive litigation tactics. The opinion does not establish new precedent but reinforces the authority of courts to impose sanctions for frivolous and obstructive conduct in litigation.

Show full summary ...

ROBERT J. WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.

BENNETT, Circuit Judge.

Appellant appeals from the decision of the United States Claims Court, 2 Cl.Ct. 409 (1983), which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition. We affirm.

Charles E. Bean was also a plaintiff before the United States Claims Court, but is not a party to this appeal.

OPINION

This breach of contract case was the subject of a published order, 221 Ct.Cl. 913 (1979), where the court granted defendant's motion for a more definite statement and required that an amended petition be filed by plaintiffs within 30 days. The court enumerated those matters which the amended petition should address and cautioned that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the case.

An amended petition was filed, and defendant still was unable to verify any of the allegations. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case was remanded to the trial division of the court for discovery. Wright v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 701 (1980).

Defendant filed interrogatories to which plaintiffs responded, but it considered plaintiffs' responses as unintelligible as their pleadings and that they again failed to identify what was to be litigated. Defendant, therefore, moved for summary judgment. The Claims Court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the petition. 2 Cl.Ct. 409 (1983).

The United States Claims Court and its predecessor, the United States Court of Claims, have demonstrated remarkable patience with plaintiffs, giving them every reasonable opportunity to cooperate and to move their case forward. They were induced to do so because plaintiffs appeared pro se. In a seven-page published opinion, cited above, the Claims Court reviewed the history of the case in meticulous detail. Its conclusion was that, in describing plaintiffs' responses to defendant's interrogatories as "vague, incomplete, less than fully responsive, and even `virtually incomprehensible,'" defendant understated the situation. The court found a persistent bad faith course of conduct by plaintiffs which had completely frustrated an orderly conduct of the case and deliberately obfuscated their claim. The court observed that "over the years both vast amounts of scarce judicial resources, and the obvious expenditure by the government of considerable time, money, and effort" had been expended, all on account of the disregard by plaintiffs of the orders of the court. Even assuming that plaintiff Bean had standing to sue, which was doubtful, the court concluded that not only should the case be dismissed but that plaintiff Wright had no standing to sue as a stockholder of the alleged corporation or trust.

We have no difficulty in concluding that the Claims Court decision must be affirmed. We need not reach the strong inferences of fraud and forgery in this claim. At the very least, the amount of time and attention this frivolous case has required of the courts is an abuse of the judicial process in startling dimensions. Not only has final resolution been delayed for years by plaintiffs' tactics, but cases of other plaintiffs have been delayed while the court was required to give attention to this one.

The statutes and rules provide sanctions in situations such as this. 28 U.S.C. § 1912 (1976) and FED.R.APP.P. 38. See also Beachboard v. United States, 727 F.2d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1553-55, 220 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Collins v. Amoco Production Co., 706 F.2d 1114 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1983); Asberry v. United States Postal Service, 692 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1982); United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp., 689 F.2d 379 (2d Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, on its own motion, this court awards the government-appellee double its allowable costs and $500 damages, to be paid by Robert J. Wright, the sole appellant in the action presently before this court.

AFFIRMED.