Brett McClafferty v. Portage Cnty., Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs
21-3335
| 6th Cir. | Dec 3, 2021Background
- Pro se prisoner Brett McClafferty sued Portage County officials and jail medical providers alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference, denial of counsel, and related state-law claims based on 2017–2018 incidents (cell extractions, shoulder injury, being left naked in a cold cell, pepper spray, hospital treatment).
- McClafferty filed to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), representing no assets or income; he attached a bankruptcy discharge but omitted previously asserted Bitcoin holdings and proceeds that other filings showed had been transferred and placed in escrow.
- Portage County moved to dismiss with prejudice and for sanctions, alleging discovery obstruction, use of "strawmen" plaintiffs, false evidence, and that McClafferty misrepresented his pauper status (recorded jail calls and family transfers suggested he had spending money and third‑party support).
- The district court granted IFP initially but later dismissed the complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) for an untrue allegation of poverty and also on the court’s inherent‑power bad‑faith grounds; it awarded attorneys’ fees and costs but declined to declare McClafferty a vexatious litigant.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(A), concluded it need not resolve the bad‑faith dismissal ground, but vacated the attorneys’ fees award and remanded because the district court failed to make required findings that the claims were meritless and that McClafferty knew or should have known they were.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) was proper for an untrue allegation of poverty | McClafferty: Bitcoin proceeds were escrowed and not available when suit filed; he disclosed a separate Goodfellas claim so IFP was proper | County: He omitted Bitcoin/escrow from IFP, made jail calls boasting of money, and received family support for commissary and JPay — he could pay filing fee | Affirmed: District court did not err; omissions and evidence of third‑party support showed allegation of poverty was untrue and dismissal with prejudice appropriate |
| Whether recorded jail calls and family funding can support an IFP‑misrepresentation finding | McClafferty: No legal requirement to be truthful in jail calls; escrowed funds unavailable | County: Calls and family transfers show expendable resources and ability to pay; omissions on form were intentional | Held: Calls and family support are relevant; court reasonably relied on them in concluding IFP misrepresentation |
| Whether dismissal for bad‑faith misconduct under the court’s inherent power was appropriate | McClafferty: District court erred in finding bad faith | County: Misconduct (strawmen suits, false evidence, discovery evasion) demonstrated bad faith warranting dismissal | Not decided on appeal: Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal on § 1915 ground and therefore did not need to resolve the bad‑faith dismissal issue |
| Whether the district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees and costs under its inherent power | McClafferty: Fees improper; defendants not prevailing and relief too extraordinary | County: Bad faith litigation justified fees and costs | Vacated and remanded: Court abused discretion by failing to find and explain that claims were meritless and that McClafferty knew or should have known they were (required elements under Big Yank/First Bank framework) |
Key Cases Cited
- First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002) (district court may award fees under inherent power for bad faith; requires findings that claims were meritless, known to be so, and filed for improper purpose)
- Big Yank Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 125 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 1997) (requires specific factual findings that claims were meritless and that party knew or should have known before awarding attorneys’ fees as sanctions)
- McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) (discusses review and procedure for IFP dismissals and related standards)
- Metz v. Unizan Bank, 655 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2011) (sanctions under inherent power reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sellers v. United States, 881 F.2d 1061 (11th Cir. 1989) (funds derived from family sources are relevant to IFP determinations)
- Williams v. Estelle, 681 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1982) (IFP denial affirmed where inmate received regular family support)