Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents Or Mr. President Of The United States Barack Obama

Filing 2

ORDER Finding Plaintiff Acted in Bad Faith and Imposing Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $100.00 on Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 6/12/13. Forty-Five Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
YOUNG YIL JO,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00837-AWI-SAB (PC)

7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENT OR
MR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BARACK OBAMA,

11
Defendants.

ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF ACTED IN BAD
FAITH AND IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $100.00 ON PLAINTIFF
(ECF No. 1)
(FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE)

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff Young Yil Jo filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3,
2013. Plaintiff was a federal prisoner who appears to have been released on May 8, 2013. To

16
17
18

date, Plaintiff Young Yil Jo has filed over one-hundred fifty civil cases in this district. The
complaint filed in this action is not signed and it sets forth no intelligible claims for relief, and

19

fails to state any cognizable claims under federal law. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

20

(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).

21

Federal courts, as all courts, are for the serious presentation of cases in which litigants wish to

22

have their matters heard. Plaintiff is not one who takes his claim with any serious indication that

23
he intends to pursue a righteous claim.
24
25

On May 29, 2013, this Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending to

26

dismiss, with prejudice, a separate frivolous complaint filed by Plaintiff in Pak v. Six Unknown

27

Names Agents. (1:13-cv-00750-AWI-SAB, ECF No. 2.)

28

findings and recommendations that he may be monetarily sanctioned for filing frivolous claims
1

The Court forewarned Plaintiff in its

1

without basis in law or fact. Id. (“Plaintiff is further forewarned that filing a complaint based

2

upon facts and law that have no reasonable basis may result in further sanctions, including but not

3

limited to an order to pay a penalty to the Court.”). Plaintiff failed to heed the Court’s warning

4
and filed this similar frivolous claim shortly after the findings and recommendations issued.
5
6

The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper conduct.

7

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S.

8

752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). The imposition of sanctions

9

under the Court’s inherent authority is discretionary. Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at

10

Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). A court’s inherent powers “are governed

11
12
13
14

not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43. Such
inherent power “is not a broad reservoir of power, ready at an imperial hand, but a limited source;

15

an implied power squeezed from the need to make the court function.” Id. at 42. “Because

16

inherent powers are shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with

17

restraint and discretion.” Roadway Express, Inc., 447 U.S. at 764.

18
19

The Court’s “inherent power ‘extends to a full range of litigation abuses.’” Fink, 239 F.3d
at 992 (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46-47). However, in order to sanction a litigant under the

20
21

Court’s inherent powers, the Court must make a specific finding of “bad faith or conduct

22

tantamount to bad faith.” Fink, 239 F.3d at 994. Although mere recklessness is insufficient to

23

support sanctions under the Court’s inherent powers, “recklessness when combined with an

24

additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose” is sufficient. Id. at

25

993-94. A litigant may be sanctioned for acting for an improper purpose, even if the act was “a

26

truthful statement or nonfrivolous argument or objection.” Id. at 992.

27
28
2

1

Here, Plaintiff’s constant bad faith filings requires members of the clerk’s office, who are

2

limited in staffing with increased responsibilities due to budget constraints, to process plaintiff’s

3

numerous frivolous filings. Further, Plaintiff’s claim delays this Court from addressing matters

4

brought in federal court in good faith. The entire Court’s time is better spent addressing matters

5
6

brought in good faith. See Snyder v. I.R.S., 596 F. Supp. 240, 252 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (“[T]he

7

doors of this courthouse are open to good faith litigation, but abuse of the judicial process . . . will

8

not be tolerated.”). Similarly, Plaintiff’s constant frivolously filings will not be tolerated.

9
10
11

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff filed this complaint in bad faith without any
basis in law or fact.

Plaintiff received notice in this Court’s previous findings and

recommendations that the filing of such complaints may result in monetary sanctions.

12
13
14
15

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

frivolous claim in bad faith;

16
17

2.

The sanction amount shall be paid to the Court within forty-five (45) days from the
date of service of this order; and

18
19

Plaintiff is assessed monetary sanctions in the amount of $100.00 for filing a

3.

The failure to pay the sanction in accordance with this order may result in the
imposition of additional sanctions.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

June 12, 2013

_

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3