534 F. App'x 479
6th Cir.2013Background
- Murray, a Columbus police lieutenant, faced a 90-day investigation deadline under the City–FOP CBA for alleged disclosure of internal affairs information; Brown extended the deadline and Murray claimed due process violation; Murray was terminated on September 4, 2008, and grieved under the CBA.
- Murray filed a §1983 suit in 2010 against the City and Brown alleging due process violations in the pre- and post-termination procedures.
- The magistrate judge urged arbitration to resolve the underlying grievance; settlement discussions with the City and FOP were ongoing, with conflicting statements about July 2010 settlement.
- Murray later alleged fraud on the court based on representations about a July 2010 settlement; the magistrate denied sanctions under Rule 37 but allowed limited discovery; Murray sought further sanctions.
- Following scheduling conferences, the City and FOP signed a settlement, and Murray resigned effective October 3, 2011; the district court ultimately dismissed the case and denied sanctions, which Murray appealed.
- The court preserved jurisdiction to review the denial of sanctions and the failure to order an attorney disciplinary investigation, ultimately affirming and dismissing related challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion by denying sanctions | Murray argues defendants lied about settlement to avoid arbitration (fraud on court) | Court found no clear bad faith or sanctionable conduct; delay did not impair litigation | No abuse of discretion; sanctions denied |
| Whether the district court should have ordered an investigation of counsel | Murray seeks disciplinary investigation under SD Ohio Model Rules | Waived and lacking standing; not a cognizable claim for a party | Rejected; no sanction/order for investigation |
| Whether the appeal is properly before the court given the notice of appeal | Murray appealed final order denying sanctions | Rule 3(c)(1)(B) allows appeal of final order; jurisdiction proper | Court has jurisdiction over denial of sanctions appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Caudill v. Hollan, 431 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2005) (jurisdiction for reviewing pre-dismissal issues and sanctions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (inherent power to sanction for conduct that abuses judicial process)
- Jones v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 617 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2010) (review of inherent-power sanctions standard of abuse of discretion)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (rules for appellate designation of final orders)
- In re Continental Steel Corp., 966 F.2d 1456 (7th Cir. 1992) (court's inherent authority over attorney discipline; standing considerations)
- First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002) (inherent power sanctions; bad faith and impact on litigation)