Cramer v. Arizona, CV-16-03522-PHX-JAT. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20190611656
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. It is not clear that this Court has the authority to enter Rule 11 sanctions after a case is closed. See Moore's Federal Practice 11.22(2)(a) ("[T]he court should ordinarily impose [Rule 11] sanctions before issuing a final order."). However, this Court can issue a sanction under its inherent power. The inherent powers of federal courts
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. It is not clear that this Court has the authority to enter Rule 11 sanctions after a case is closed. See Moore's Federal Practice 11.22(2)(a) ("[T]he court should ordinarily impose [Rule 11] sanctions before issuing a final order."). However, this Court can issue a sanction under its inherent power. The inherent powers of federal courts ..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. It is not clear that this Court has the authority to enter Rule 11 sanctions after a case is closed. See Moore's Federal Practice § 11.22(2)(a) ("[T]he court should ordinarily impose [Rule 11] sanctions before issuing a final order."). However, this Court can issue a sanction under its inherent power.
The inherent powers of federal courts are those that "are necessary to the exercise of all others." Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 S.Ct. 259 (1812)). The most common utilization of inherent powers is a contempt sanction levied to "protect[ ] the due and orderly administration of justice" and "maintain[ ] the authority and dignity of the court." Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 (1925). . . .
Before awarding sanctions under its inherent powers, however, the court must make an explicit finding that [the] conduct "constituted or was tantamount to bad faith." Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 767; see also In re Keegan, 78 F.3d at 436; United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir.1986).
Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997).
Here, Petitioner has filed several documents into the record of this Court seemingly to attempt to trick the state officials into releasing him from custody. See Docs. 46, 47, 48, and 49. The Court finds this attempt at deception to be in bad faith. To prevent Petitioner from continuing to attempt to use this Court's record for an improper purpose, the Court will enter the sanction of barring Petitioner or his agents from filing any additional documents in the record of this case. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting the motion for sanctions (Doc. 50) for the reasons specified above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reject any future filings from Petitioner or purporting to be on behalf of Petitioner in this closed case.
Source: Leagle
