Cramer #124771 v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 50 Defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reject any future filings from Petitioner or purporting to be on behalf of Petitioner in this closed case. [See attached order for additional information.] Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 6/10/2019. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

David Cramer,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-03522-PHX-JAT

State of Arizona, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 11. It is not clear that this Court has the authority to enter Rule 11

17

sanctions after a case is closed. See Moore’s Federal Practice § 11.22(2)(a) (“[T]he court

18

should ordinarily impose [Rule 11] sanctions before issuing a final order.”). However, this

19

Court can issue a sanction under its inherent power.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The inherent powers of federal courts are those that “are necessary to the
exercise of all others.” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764
(1980) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259
(1812)). The most common utilization of inherent powers is a contempt
sanction levied to “protect[ ] the due and orderly administration of justice”
and “maintain[ ] the authority and dignity of the court.” Cooke v. United
States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 (1925). …
Before awarding sanctions under its inherent powers, however, the court
must make an explicit finding that [the] conduct “constituted or was
tantamount to bad faith.” Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 767; see also In re
Keegan, 78 F.3d at 436; United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F.2d 1391, 1393
(9th Cir.1986).
Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997).
Here, Petitioner has filed several documents into the record of this Court seemingly
to attempt to trick the state officials into releasing him from custody. See Docs. 46, 47, 48,

1

and 49. The Court finds this attempt at deception to be in bad faith.

2

To prevent Petitioner from continuing to attempt to use this Court’s record for an

3

improper purpose, the Court will enter the sanction of barring Petitioner or his agents from

4

filing any additional documents in the record of this case. Therefore,

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion for sanctions (Doc. 50) for the reasons
specified above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reject any future
filings from Petitioner or purporting to be on behalf of Petitioner in this closed case.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2019.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-