Wodiuk v. Graziano
Filing
587
ORDER Granting 496 Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. By February 16, 2021, Wodiuk is DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE, in a filing not to exceed five pages, why she should not be enjoined from filing any further pro se documents in this case withou t first seeking leave of Court. Graziano is DIRECTED to file supplemental documentation of her attorneys fees and costs expended in counsels attempt to conduct the Bill of Costs hearing on May 21, 2020, and for the fees incurred analyzing Wodiuk's post-judgment filings no later than March 1, 2021. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 2/3/2021.(angar, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-2931-WJM-SKC
HEIDI WODIUK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAITLIN GRAZIANO, individually and in her official capacity with the Pueblo County
Sheriff’s Department,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
On April 6, 2020, the Court issued the ultimate sanction against Plaintiff Heidi
Wodiuk, who is proceeding pro se, by dismissing her case with prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 1 (ECF No. 475.) The Clerk entered judgment in favor of
Defendant Caitlin Graziano, and the Court ordered that Graziano should have her costs
upon compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. (Id.; ECF No. 476.)
Following entry of final judgment, Wodiuk has continued to file letters, notices of
confidential and additional tips, and motions which contain similar content to that
described in the Court’s dismissal order: threats, conspiracy theories, insults, and the
like. The Court struck several of these motions (See ECF Nos. 498, 506, 508, 518, 524,
529, 552), but the additional filings have become so frequent and voluminous that they
remain on the docket. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 555–586.)
1
Given that the dismissal order exceeds 50 pages and thoroughly recounts the history
and conduct of the parties, the Court assumes familiarity with the background of the case and
reasons for dismissal. (See ECF No. 475.)
Currently before the Court is Graziano’s Motion for Sanctions (“Motion”), filed
June 19, 2020. (ECF No. 496.) In the Motion, Graziano states that on April 14, 2020,
she submitted her Bill of Costs form, and a hearing on costs was set for May 21, 2020
with the Clerk of Court. (Id. at 2.) According to Graziano, Wodiuk refused to cooperate
with the telephonic hearing and challenged the Clerk’s jurisdiction to hear Graziano’s
request for costs. (Id.) Due to Wodiuk’s outbursts, which precluded both the Clerk and
Graziano’s counsel from speaking, the hearing could not proceed and was continued
until July 15, 2020. (Id.)
Graziano explains that the following day, on May 22, 2020, Wodiuk began
contacting another law firm, where Sean Lane and Alex Pass (Graziano’s counsel) are
of-counsel, and threatened to report counsel to the IRS, the FBI, and numerous other
federal agents. (Id.) In addition, Wodiuk continues to send non-sensical faxes to the
firm, in which she threatens a variety of actions and threatens to report individuals to
federal authorities, and continues to file non-sensical motions and filings in this matter,
despite the dismissal order. (Id.)
In the Motion and reply brief (ECF Nos. 496, 510), Graziano requests that the
Court enter sanctions against Wodiuk for her failure to cooperate with the previously
scheduled costs hearing and for Wodiuk’s insistence on filing non-sensical and
irrelevant notices and demands for relief after the final judgment was entered in this
case. 2 (ECF No. 496 at 3.) Graziano states that Wodiuk’s filings have inflated her
attorneys’ fees, as Graziano’s counsel has an ongoing obligation to review and analyze
Wodiuk’s filings. (Id.) Thus, Graziano requests that the Court order Wodiuk to
2
Graziano does not provide a legal basis for the request for sanctions or cite any
authority in support of the Motion.
2
reimburse her for the attorneys’ fees expended in counsel’s attempt to conduct the Bill
of Costs hearing on May 21, 2020, and for the fees incurred analyzing Wodiuk’s nonsensical filings submitted after the dismissal of this action.
In response, Wodiuk submitted a filing entitled “Demand for Relief: To
Respondents Idiotic-Illogical-Unconstitutional Motion for Sanctions” (“Response”) (ECF
No. 501), to which Graziano replied (ECF No. 510). The Response brief is 13 pages of
single-spaced language, 3 most of which is non-sensical and contains allegations of
terrorism against Graziano’s counsel (ECF No. 501 at 2); statements that the Court is
“delusional,” and “serious [sic] deranged in levying war on the USA” (id. at 3);
statements that “no clerk of the court can run a federal court hearing for bill of cost [sic]”
and is therefore “by law acting in treason and terrorist threats in extortion and ransom
demands [sic]” (id. at 4); and accusations of being “abused by [the Clerk of Court] and
dominated-overpowered by verbal insults, verbal threats, verbal abuse and verbal
assaults [sic]” (id. at 4). Wodiuk demands that the Bill of Costs hearing be conducted by
a “merited USA federal appointed judge.” (Id. at 5.) The Response continues in a
similar manner, which the Court will not recount here.
Federal courts have certain “inherent powers” which are not conferred by rule or
statute “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). Among
these powers is a court’s “ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which
abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991);
3
Wodiuk’s Response violates this Court’s Local Rule prohibiting single-spaced filings
and the undersigned’s Revised Practice Standards. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1(e); WJM
Revised Practice Standard III.F.7. However, because the Court considers it a futile effort to
direct an amended response brief, the Court will consider the Response as filed.
3
see also Rice v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 2019 WL 3000808, at *3–4 (S.D.N.Y. July
10, 2019) (imposing sanctions pursuant to court’s inherent powers). One permissible
sanction is an assessment of attorneys’ fees, requiring the party that has engaged in
misconduct to reimburse the legal fees and costs of the other party. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). Such a sanction “must be
compensatory rather than punitive in nature.” Id.
Pursuant to its inherent authority, the Court finds sanctions are warranted in this
case. 4 Despite the Court’s order dismissing this case and awarding Graziano her costs,
Wodiuk’s actions have impeded the parties from proceeding with the Bill of Costs
hearing. In addition, Wodiuk has continued to file non-sensical documents in the case,
which has interfered with the efficient operation of this Court and caused Graziano to
incur unnecessary attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court finds that Wodiuk has abused
the judicial process by engaging in vexatious conduct. An award of attorneys’ fees and
costs is appropriate to compensate Graziano.
In addition to the foregoing, Wodiuk’s conduct in this case warrants the
imposition of additional restrictions by the Court. “[T]he right of access to the courts is
neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the
courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d
351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted) (per curiam); see also Sieverding v. Colo.
Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006)). Federal courts have the inherent
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by
4
While typically the Court would issue an order to show cause why Wodiuk should not
be ordered to pay Graziano’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in attempting to conduct the Bill
of Costs hearing and in reviewing Wodiuk’s frivolous filings, given Wodiuk’s conduct throughout
this case, the Court again finds such an order would be futile.
4
entering orders that are “necessary or appropriate in aid of [the Court’s] jurisdiction.”
Winslow v. Hunter, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Tripati, 878 F.2d at
352. “There is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to
regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions
under the appropriate circumstances,” Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.
1986), and “where, as here, a party has engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which
is manifestly abusive, restrictions are appropriate,” Winslow, 17 F.3d at 315.
The Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who
files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally
abuses judicial process. Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th Cir. 1981). These
restrictions may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on the filing of future
suits. Id. Injunctions restricting further filings are appropriate where: (1) the litigant’s
lengthy and abusive history is set forth; (2) the court provides guidelines as to what the
litigant may do to obtain its permission to file an action; and (3) the litigant receives
notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is implemented. Tripati,
878 F.2d at 353–54.
Although Wodiuk appears not to have filed an excessive number of cases in the
District of Colorado, she has submitted a massive number of abusive, insulting,
disruptive, and frivolous filings in this matter. As the Court has explained, these filings
have interfered with Court operations and have caused Graziano to incur unnecessary
fees and costs.
Accordingly, the Court directs Wodiuk to show cause why she should not be
enjoined from filing any further pro se documents in this case without first seeking leave
5
of Court.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.
By February 16, 2021, Wodiuk is DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE, in a filing not
to exceed five pages, why she should not be enjoined from filing any further pro
se documents in this case without first seeking leave of Court;
2.
Graziano’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 496) is GRANTED; and
3.
Graziano is DIRECTED to file supplemental documentation of her attorneys’ fees
and costs expended in counsel’s attempt to conduct the Bill of Costs hearing on
May 21, 2020, and for the fees incurred analyzing Wodiuk’s post-judgment filings
no later than March 1, 2021.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martinez
United States District Judge
6
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?