Collier v. DeJoy
5:24-cv-01224
W.D. Okla.Jan 8, 2026Check TreatmentDocket
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CORETTA COLLIER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1224-D
)
DAVID P. STEINER, Postmaster )
General, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Coretta Collier’s “Motion for Sanctions Against United
States Postal Service For Continued Direct Contact, Retaliatory Separation Delivery”
[Doc. No. 34]. Defendant filed a response [Doc. No. 35], and Plaintiff replied [Doc. No.
37]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
Plaintiff moves for sanctions under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 and 37. Rule 11 provides in
part that, by signing or submitting filings, an attorney or pro se party “certifies that to the
best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances,” the filing “is not being presented for any improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 11(b)(1). The Court may sanction a party or attorney who violates Rule 11(b). FED.
R. CIV. P. 11(c). The Court may also sanction a party under Rule 37 for failure to cooperate
in discovery or “fail[ure] to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” FED. R. CIV. P.
37(b).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court does not find any conduct by USPS or
Defendant Steiner that violates Rule 11. Plaintiff complains of conduct such as USPS
sending her a “Notice of Separation – Disability” via both certified mail and priority
express mail, arguing that the “deliberate dual-mailing demonstrates calculated pressure.”
[Doc. No. 34, at 2]. Plaintiff also alleges that USPS falsely stated in a July 22, 2025 letter
that Plaintiff was “totally unable to report to duty.” Id. This allegation relates to the merits
of Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim—it is not sanctionable conduct. See Auto-Owners
Ins. Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Ass’n, 886 F.3d 852, 858 (10th Cir. 2018) (“Rule 11
does not generally apply to a party’s out of court conduct.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion
does not comply with Rule 11(c)(2). FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2) (“The motion must be served
under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper,
claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21
days after service or within another time the court sets.”).
Similarly, Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct by USPS or Defendant Steiner that
implicates Rule 37. Notably, when Plaintiff filed her motion for sanctions, discovery had
not yet commenced. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that USPS or Defendant Steiner have
failed to cooperate in discovery or failed to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,
as required for sanctions under Rule 37.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Sanctions Against United States Postal
Service For Continued Direct Contact, Retaliatory Separation Delivery” [Doc. No. 34] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8" day of January, 2026.
Ny Q.OyPt
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge