Quintanilla v. Six Unknown Agents or Mr President of the United States Barack Obama

Filing 3

ORDER Finding Plaintiff Acted in Bad Faith and Imposing Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $250.00 on Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/27/13. 45-Day Deadline.(Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS QUINTANILLA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01917-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF ACTED IN BAD
FAITH AND IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $250.00 ON
PLAINTIFF
(ECF No. 1)
FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE

17

To date, Plaintiff Young Yil Jo has filed over one-hundred fifty civil cases in this district. The

18

complaint filed in this action is not signed and it sets forth no intelligible claims for relief, and fails to

19

state any cognizable claims under federal law. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-668 (2009); Bell

20

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Federal courts, as all courts, are for the serious

21

presentation of cases in which litigants wish to have their matters heard. Plaintiff is not one who takes

22

his claim with any serious indication that he intends to pursue a righteous claim.

23

On June 12, 2013, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff acted in bad faith and

24

imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $100.00 in a separate frivolous complaint filed by

25

Plaintiff in Young Yil Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents in case number 1:13-cv-00837-AWI-SAB,

26

ECF No. 2. The Court cited to a previous frivolous complaint filed by Plaintiff in Pak v. Six

27

Unknown Names Agent in case number 1:13-cv-00750-AWI-SAB, in which Plaintiff was forewarned

28

that monetary sanctions would be imposed for filing frivolous complaints.
1

1

The Court also issued a findings and recommendations, in case number 1:13-cv-00837-AWI-

2

SAB, recommending to dismiss the action with prejudice as frivolous. (Id., ECF No. 3.) The findings

3

and recommendations were adopted in full on August 21, 2013, and the action was dismissed.

4

Plaintiff has previously been informed on numerous occasions that he may be monetarily

5

sanctions for filing frivolous claims without basis in law or fact. See 1:13-cv-00750-AWI-SAB, ECF

6

No. 2 (“Plaintiff is further forewarned that filing a complaint based upon facts and law that have no

7

reasonable basis may result in further sanctions, including but not limited to an order to pay a penalty

8

to the Court.”), 1:13-cv-00837-AWI-SAB, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff failed to heed the Court’s warning

9

and filed this similar frivolous claim.

10

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

11

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752,

12

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

13

Court’s inherent authority is discretionary. Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London,

14

45 F.3d 288, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). A court’s inherent powers “are governed not by rule or statue but by

15

the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and

16

expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43. Such inherent power “is not a broad

17

reservoir of power, ready at an imperial hand, but a limited source; and implied power squeezed from

18

the need to make the court function.” Id. at 42. “Because inherent powers are shielded from direct

19

democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Roadway Express, Inc.,

20

447 U.S. at 764.

21

The Court’s “inherent power ‘extends to a full range of litigation abuses.’” Fink, 239 F.3d at

22

992 (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46-47.) However, in order to sanction a litigant under the Court’s

23

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

24

faith.” Fink, 239 F.3d at 994. Although mere recklessness is insufficient to support sanctions under

25

the Court’s inherent powers, “recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as

26

frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose” is sufficient. Id. at 993-994. A litigant may be

27

sanctioned for acting for an improper purpose, even if the act was “a truthful statement or nonfrivolous

28

argument or objection.” Id. at 992.
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

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

6

this courthouse are open to good faith litigation, but abuse of the judicial process . . . will not be

7

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

8
9
10

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.

11

Based on the foregoing,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

claim in bad faith;

14
15

2.

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

16
17

Plaintiff is assessed monetary sanctions in the amount of $250.00 for filing a frivolous

3.

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

18
19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 27, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3