Bonham v. State of Nevada ex rel, 2:20-cv-01768

Plaintiff Bryan Bonham filed a motion for a preliminary injunction challenging Nevada Department of Corrections COVID-19 restrictions on outdoor recreation time.
The Nevada Attorney General, specially appearing, filed a response; Bonham then filed a reply and a motion for sanctions accusing defense counsel of perjury and making false statements about cell exercise space and the "hanger room" doors.
Bonham invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1746, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, and Nevada criminal statutes as bases for sanctions/penalty.
The court treated the filing as alternatively seeking sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, noting Rule 11 requires a 21-day safe-harbor notice to opposing counsel before filing a motion.
The court found the cited criminal statutes do not provide a civil remedy and that Bonham did not comply with Rule 11’s safe-harbor requirement nor show persuasive evidence the statements lacked evidentiary support.
The court also granted Defendants’ motion for leave to file a one-day-late opposition, finding excusable neglect for a counsel miscommunication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether criminal statutes (perjury/falsification) authorize civil sanctions in this case	Bonham argues defense counsel committed perjury/false statements and cites federal and state criminal statutes to justify sanctions	Defendants argue criminal statutes are for criminal enforcement and do not create a civil remedy or basis for sanctions here	Denied: criminal statutes do not confer civil sanction authority; criminal enforcement is for government agencies
Whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted	Bonham contends counsel’s signed response contained false factual claims warranting Rule 11 sanctions	Defendants contend their filings were reasonable; also note Plaintiff did not provide the 21-day safe-harbor notice required by Rule 11	Denied: Bonham failed to satisfy Rule 11 safe-harbor and did not show persuasive evidence of improper factual assertions
Whether to accept a one-day-late opposition by Defendants	N/A (procedural)	Defendants explained a miscommunication between attorneys caused the one-day delay	Granted: court found excusable neglect and allowed the late filing

Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) (criminal statutes generally do not create civil liability)
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (criminal penalties do not confer private civil remedies)