Sharp v. Town of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina
2:11-cv-00013
E.D.N.C.Nov 14, 2011Background
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss/deny amendment; court dismissed complaint July 29, 2011.
- Multiple defendants seek sanctions or attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. §1927, Rule 11, and/or inherent power.
- Plaintiff did not respond to motions but filed an affidavit detailing substantial prior state-court sanctions.
- Court previously denied similar sanctions in related federal action and addressed Rule 11 standards.
- Plaintiff’s ongoing state-law focus in this action led to duplicative filings; court warned against further action.
- Court denies sanctions, noting potential future sanctions if plaintiff files another suit on the same subject matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1927 applies to pro se litigants. | Plaintiff should be liable under §1927. | §1927 does not apply to pro se litigants. | §1927 does not apply to pro se litigants. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted against plaintiff. | Plaintiff acted reasonably; no sanction justified. | Rule 11 violations possible due to improper purpose/position. | Rule 11 sanctions not warranted. |
| Whether the court should use its inherent power to sanction. | Inherent power may sanction for bad faith. | Bad faith/vexatious conduct justifies sanctions. | Inherent power sanctions denied. |
| Whether sanctions should cover the defendants’ fees given duplicative filings. | Fees appropriate due to same underlying conduct. | Limit to fees directly arising from this case; avoid duplicative fees. | Any award limited to fees directly resulting from this case; excessive amounts disallowed. |
| Whether movants’ motions were timely. | Timeliness irrelevant to merits. | Motions filed timely per Rule 54(d)(2)(B). | Motions untimely for those filed after 23 August 2011; denied on timeliness grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Partain v. Reese, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 84977 (D.S.C. 2010) (§1927 not applicable to pro se litigants (majority view))
- Abbott v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29265 (E.D. Va. 2009) (§1927 does not apply to pro se litigants (majority view))
- Balcar v. Bell & Assocs., LLC, 295 F. Supp. 2d 635 (N.D. W. Va. 2003) (§1927 and Rule 11 inapplicability to pro se litigants; standard for sanctions)
- Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 1996) (sanctions standards; purpose of Rule 11 to deter; pro se indulgence)
- Sassower v. Field, 973 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1992) (sanctions standards; Rule 11 applicable with caution)
- Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussion of sanctions and pre-filing considerations)
- DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 1999) (sanctions should not push into financial ruin; deterrence balancing)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent power sanctions must be exercised with restraint and discretion)