Driessen v. Home Loan State Bank
ORDER; The 33 Order to Show Cause is made ABSOLUTE. Plaintiff is fined $100 for violation of Court Order 31 . On or before 2/20/2013, Plaintiff shall pay the fine to the Clerk of the Court. Failure to pay the fine, or any further failure to comply with Court Orders, shall result in a recommendation that Plaintiff's case be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(b), by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/4/2013. (klmcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02220-MSK-KLM
HOME LOAN STATE BANK,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on its Order to Show Cause [Docket No. 33; Issued
January 8, 2013]. In that Order, the Court directed Plaintiff, who is proceeding in this
matter pro se, to show cause why this Court should not impose sanctions against her
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). The Court noted that Plaintiff had sent two inappropriate
emails to the Court and that it had warned Plaintiff after the first one that she should not
send further correspondence to the Court by email.
Specifically, the Court made the following findings as to the second email. First, as
the Court had previously pointed out in the Order dated January 4, 2013 [#31] (hereinafter
referred to as “Order #31"), the second email violated Local Rule 77.2 of this Court, which
forbids parties from sending communications directly to a judicial officer. Second, the
second email violated Order #31, which explicitly instructed Plaintiff not to communicate
with the Court in this fashion. Third, like the first email, the second email contained
extremely disrespectful and inappropriate language regarding the Court. Fourth, the
second email contained misrepresentations about Plaintiff’s and the Court’s actions in this
case, as outlined in further detail in the Order to Show Cause.
Order #31 specifically warned Plaintiff that “any communication to the Court in
violation of this Order shall result in the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff.” The
Court found that the email attached to the Order to Show Cause violated Order #31 and
that sanctions thus appeared to be appropriate pursuant to Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b)(1) (stating that submissions to the Court must not be presented for any improper
purpose, including harassment). Rule 11(c) allows the Court to impose monetary sanctions
on its own initiative. However, before it may do so, it must follow a prescribed mandatory
procedure. Wasko v. Moore, 122 Fed. App’x 403, 406 (10th Cir. Feb. 1, 2005). The Court
therefore issued “a show cause order specifically describing the conduct implicating the
rule, followed by a reasonable opportunity for the party/attorney so advised to demonstrate
how she has not violated the rule.” Id. (citing Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 208 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th
Plaintiff filed a Response [#35] to the Order to Show Cause on January 25, 2013.
However, Plaintiff’s Response does not address any of the issues relevant to the Order to
Rather, she attempts to direct the Court’s attention away from the
inappropriate and disrespectful emails sent to the Court on January 4, 2013 and January
8, 2013 by discussing only a prior communication regarding submission of a proposed
scheduling order. See Response [#35] at 2. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has
failed to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions against her pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause [#33] is made
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is fined $100 for violation of Court Order
#31. On or before February 20, 2013, Plaintiff shall pay the fine to Jeffrey P. Colwell,
Clerk of the Court, 901 19th St., Denver, Colorado 80294.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to pay the fine, or any further failure to
comply with Court Orders, shall result in a recommendation that Plaintiff’s case be
dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Dated: February 4, 2013
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?