Bradley v. Tucker et al

Filing 28

ORDER directing Plaintiff's counsel to show cause within 21 days why the Court should not impose sanctions. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 1/6/15. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ALBERT BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
4:14-cv-165

V.

OFFICER CHRISTOPHER TUCKER
and JOHN & JANE DOES 1-20 in their
personal capacities as law enforcement
officers of the state and federal
governments,
Defendants.

r.

0

The conduct of Plaintiff's Counsel in
this case has troubled the Court. As an
initial matter, Plaintiff's Counsel has been
unable to sufficiently explain his inability to
comply with Court orders. Twice he has
come before the Court and cited his lack of
experience in federal court and unfamiliarity
with the Court's Local Rules and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as cause for
excusing his failure to participate in the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
See ECF Nos. 16 at 1-2
conference.
(Plaintiffs Response to Order to Show
Cause); 24 at 5-6.
Such reasons provide good cause to not
practice in this Court, but such reasons
provide the Court with no cause to excuse
failure to comply with Court orders. Indeed,
attorneys admitted to practice before this
Court are required to take an oath attesting
to their familiarity with the Local Rules
before being permitted to sign the roll book
and represent clients here. The Court cannot

seriously entertain an argument from an
admitted attorney, such as Plaintiffs
Counsel, that inexperience and lack of
understanding of the Local Rules should
excuse contempt of Court orders. Not only
does such argument, as the Magistrate Judge
put it, "ring[] hollow," ECF No. 21 at 2, it
also sounds in bad faith.
In addition, Plaintiff's Counsel has
advanced meritless claims on behalf of his
client and forced Officer Christopher Tucker
the time and expense of answering those
charges. Supreme Court and Eleventh
Circuit precedent squarely dispelled any
notion that a valid cause of action existed
against Officer Tucker. Plaintiffs Counsel
either was unaware of this well-settled
precedent or utterly ignored it.
Thus, the Court is faced with more than
Plaintiffs Counsel's failure to obey Court
Orders. It is also faced with wasteful misuse
of the Court's scarce resources. In such
situations, the Court is empowered to
sanction an attorney by statute, see Amlong
& Amlong, P.A. v. Denny 's Inc., 500 F.3d
1230, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (28 U.S.C. §
1927), and by rule, see Mike Ousley Prods.,
Inc. v, WJBF-TV, 952 F.2d 380, 383 (11th
Cir. 1992) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). In addition,
pursuant to its own inherent powers, the
Court may fashion appropriate "sanction[s]
for conduct which abuses the judicial
process." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32,44-45 (1991). Among the sanctions
the Court can choose from, is the assessment
of attorney's fees. See id. at 45. Of
relevance here, award of attorney's fees is
an appropriate sanction "for the 'willful
disobedience of a court order" and for
"when a party has 'acted in bad faith,

This

vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive
reasons." Id. at 45-46 (quoting Alyeska
Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc 'y, 421
U.S. 240, 258-59 (1975) (internal quotation
marks omitted)). "The award vindicates
judicial authority without resort to the more
drastic sanctions available for contempt of
court and makes the prevailing party whole
for expenses caused by his opponent's
obstinacy." Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678,
689 n.14 (1978).

day of January 2015.

k ag~~

B. AVAN DENFIE D1J5GE
UNITED STATES DIS*ICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

"Because of their very potency,
[however,] inherent powers must be
exercised with restraint and discretion."
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. Pursuant to that
end, courts "must comply with the mandates
of due process, both in determining that the
requisite bad faith exists and in assessing
fees." Id. at 50. Likewise, "[a]ttorneys
facing possible discipline under Rule 11
have interests qualifying for protection
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment" and are due "notice and an
opportunity to be heard." Donaldson v.

Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1558 (11th Cir.
1987). The same is true attorneys facing
discipline under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Amlong
& Amlong, P.A., 500 F.3d at 1242.
Therefore, Plaintiff's Counsel will have
twenty-one days to show cause as to why the
Court should not impose sanctions for his
conduct in this litigation. As a reminder, the
Court has twice rejected assertions of
inexperience and unfamiliarity with Local
Rules as insufficient cause for Plaintiff's
Counsel's contempt of Court Orders.
Stepping back to the plate with those
reasons in an attempt to show cause in
response to this Order would be ill-advised.

'I