IN RE: ORDER CERTIFYING CASES (RE: PETAWAY)

Filing 2

APRIL 6, 2012 ENTRY - This matter is REFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY for the Southern District of Indiana, for consideration of whether to prosecute Petaway for criminal contempt of court under 18 U.S.C. § 401 based on her repeated violations of the Bankruptcy Court orders. Further, the Court requests that the United States provide notice as to whether they intend to pursue prosecution, within 30 days of the date of this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/6/2012.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
)
IN RE: ORDER CERTIFYING CASES TO )
DISTRICT COURT FOR FINDING OF
)
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, BY TANYA
)
PETAWAY, OF PRIOR BANKRUPTCY
)
COURT ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12-mc-0028-TWP-TAB

APRIL 6, 2012 ENTRY
This miscellaneous matter comes before the Court for consideration of the Bankruptcy
Court’s Order Certifying Cases to District Court for Findings of Criminal Contempt of Prior
Bankruptcy Court Orders (“Order”) (Dkt. 1), which was issued on March 13, 2012. The
proceedings, initiated upon the motion of the United States Trustee in this District, pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 110, arise out of the conduct of Tanya Petaway (“Petaway”). The extensive factual
backdrop of this case is found in the above-mentioned Order, which should be viewed in
conjunction with this Entry, as the Court finds the Order to be thorough and well-reasoned.
At its core, this matter centers on Petaway’s repeated and flagrant disregard of prior
Bankruptcy Court orders to cease preparing bankruptcy petitions. Specifically, Petaway, a nonattorney, has been the subject of both a Contempt Injunction and a Permanent Injunction,
enjoining her from, among other things, “acting as a Bankruptcy Petition Preparer” and
“assisting any other person or entity in the preparation of any document or pleading for filing[.]”
Nonetheless, despite being on clear notice of these injunctions, Petaway has continued acting as
bankruptcy petition preparer in at least seven cases; in these cases, the petitions she has prepared
contain false statements which “appear designed for only one purpose – to conceal the fact that

Petaway prepared these documents.” These seven cases are: (1) In re Bertha Harris,
11-14365-JKC-7A; (2) In re Karolyn D. Robinson, 11-10817-FJO-7; (3) In re Teresa Ann
Patterson, 11-13625-JKC-7; (4) In re Saressa Owens, 11-09518-JKC-7A; (5) In re Amanda
Bible, 11-12279-FJO-7A; (6) In re Antoinette Renee Brooks, 11-10826-AJM-7; and (7) In re
Tiffanie Scott-Cook, 11-10858-AJM-7.
Moreover, in one instance, Petaway did not act as a Bankruptcy Petition Preparer because she
was not paid for her services, but she still violated the injunctions by preparing documents for
filing in the Bankruptcy Court. See In re Terri A. Wells, 11-13113-JKC-7A. In sum, as the
Bankruptcy Court noted in its Order, “Petaway’s action . . . are in contempt of the Contempt
Injunction, the Permanent Injunction, or both.”
From there, the Bankruptcy Court noted that there are two types of contempt: civil and
criminal. Given the severity and pervasiveness of Petaway’s misconduct, the Bankruptcy Court
found that “harsher sanctions accordant with criminal contempt are appropriate,” as civil
sanctions “are likely to be ineffective.” However, the Seventh Circuit’s position on whether
bankruptcy courts have criminal contempt powers is “unsettled.” Cox v. Zale Del., Inc., 239 F.3d
910, 916 (7th Cir. 2001). As a result of the Bankruptcy Court’s possible limitations on contempt
powers, it certified Petaway’s cases to this Court for possible prosecution, stating that “[e]ach of
the Certified Cases warrants review by the District Court to determine whether grounds exist for
the prosecution of . . . Petaway for criminal contempt of the Contempt Injunction and the
Permanent Injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401.”
With respect to criminal contempt, federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 401, confers
upon a court the authority to punish by imprisonment “[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful

2

writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). Conduct that violates § 401
is a crime, and, generally, “contemnors are convicted through normal criminal process.” F.T.C.
v. Trudeau, 606 F.3d 382, 385 (7th Cir. 2010). Specifically, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
42(a) outlines the ordinary procedures necessary for a finding of criminal contempt, providing as
follows:
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal
contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on
notice.
(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open
court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The
notice must:
(A) state the time and place of the trial;
(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to
prepare a defense; and
(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged
criminal contempt and describe it as such.
(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that
the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the
government, unless the interest of justice requires the
appointment of another attorney. If the government
declines the request, the court must appoint another
attorney to prosecute the contempt.
(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for
criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in
which federal law so provides and must be released or
detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt
involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that
judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or
hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or
verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

In In re Contempt Proceedings for Bess, 2011 WL 4916437 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2011),
the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dealt with very similar circumstances in
consideration of the bankruptcy courts certificate of criminal contempt, writing as follows:

3

Given the nature of the criminal contempt at issue, this Court
concludes Gomez Bess and Fromstein must be afforded the
protections of Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure and the additional constitutional
protections—substantive and procedural—that are afforded to
criminal defendants. . . . Therefore, based on those highly
significant considerations, the Court refers this matter to the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
for consideration of whether to pursue criminal contempt
charges under 18 U.S.C. § 401 against Gomez Bess and
Fromstein based on their conduct in the seven bankruptcy
actions[.]
Id. at *2. This Court will follow the same approach.
Accordingly, this matter is REFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY for the
Southern District of Indiana, for consideration of whether to prosecute Petaway for criminal
contempt of court under 18 U.S.C. § 401 based on her repeated violations of the Bankruptcy
Court orders. Further, the Court requests that the United States provide notice as to whether they
intend to pursue prosecution, within 30 days of the date of this Entry.

SO ORDERED.
04/06/2012
Date: ________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Joe Howard Vaughn
United States Attorney’s Office
10 West Market Street
Suite 2100
Indianapolis, IN 46204

4