Anderson v. Dickson et al

Filing 86

OPINION AND ORDER: 1) 80 Motion for Attorney Fees by Dft Horn is GRANTED. Anderson MUST PAY Horn atty's fees and costs of $720. 2) 81 Motion for Attorney Fees by Dft Thomas Quisenberry is GRANTED. Anderson MUST PAY Quisenberry atty� 39;s fees and costs of $2700. 3) 82 Motion for Costs and Fees by dfts Council Oaks and Short is GRANTED. Anderson MUST PAY Council Oaks and Short a total of $7300 in atty's fees and costs. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 8/24/2018. (SCD)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla(via US Mail)

Ra,steii11 lJiM

.

/: "1tiflct Ofl!e_

I L. l O 'lltuaJry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUHT
EAST:ERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION -- LEXINGTON
ARTIS ANDERSON,

AUG

2 4 20/8

R~£LEXtNG7i

CL£Rk l.J ERr R ON
.s. Dtsr,· C-4RfT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-71-KKC?'C'cou.l?r

Plaintiff,

v.

OPINION AND ORDER

VANESSA M. DICKSON,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on motions for attorney's fees and costs filed by certain
defendants (DE 80, 81, 82).
I. Background

Plaintiff Artis Anderson proceeded pro se in this matter but he has considerable
experience in filing federal actions, having filed eight federal actions in this Court since
1994. This action was at least his fourth federal action involving allegations that state
officials interfered with his marriage and his third such action that involves his marriage to
Mary Ellen Reynolds. See Anderson v. Conway, No. 6:12-cv-70-GFVT (E.D. Ky. filed April 2,
2012); Anderson v. Wiley, No. 5:16-cv-34-DCR (E.D. Ky. filed Feb. 1, 2016); Anderson v.

Beshear, No. 5:15-cv-207-KKC (E.D. Ky. filed July 20, 2015) (Anderson[).
By judgment dated July 26, 2016, this Court dismissed all of Anderson's claims.

Anderson appealed and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's ruling.

Anderson v. Dickson, 715 F. App'x 481 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1558 (2018).
In addition, the Sixth Circuit found that Anderson's appeal was filed out of "sheer
obstinacy," and was, therefore, frivolous. Id. at 489. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 38, the court granted the motion for attorney's fees and costs filed by
defendants Dr. Thomas Quisenberry, Council Oaks, John Short, and Robert Horn.

Nevertheless, these defendants did not request a specific amount for their fees and costs
and, thus, the Sixth Circuit remanded the matter to this Court to determine the
appropriate damages and Anderson's ability to pay. Id.
Defendants Council Oaks and Short have submitted evidence that they incurred
attorney's fees and costs of $29,358.16 in defending Anderson's claims against them,
including the frivolous appeal. See Bennett Evan Cooper, Federal Appellate Practice: Ninth
Circuit, § 22:11 (2017-2018 Edition); Rostad and Rostad Corp. u. Investment Management &

Research, Inc., 923 F.2d 694, 697 (9th Cir. 1991) (awarding attorney's fees and costs
incurred in both the district court and Court of Appeals).
Defendant Horn has submitted evidence that he incurred attorney's fees and costs of
$720 in defending against Anderson's appeal. Horn proceeded pro se throughout the
litigation in this Court and retained counsel only for the appeal. Defendant Quisenberry
has submitted evidence that he incurred a total of $10,962.22 in defending against
Anderson's appeal. Quisenberry does not include the fees and costs he incurred in this
Court; he includes only the fees he incurred on appeal.
By prior order, the Court granted Anderson time to file objections to the amount of
fees and costs requested by the defendants. He has not done so.
The Sixth Circuit specifically ordered this Court to consider Anderson's "ability to
pay the sanction" in determining the appropriate amount to award the defendants. Id. at
489 (citing Smith u. Capots, 78 F.3d 585, 1996 WL 99322, at *3 (6th Cir. 1996)). The Court
ordered Anderson to file a notice with the Court correcting any of the financial information
contained in his motion and affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court explained that, if Anderson failed to correct the financial information in the
record, the Court would assume it was correct. Anderson has not corrected the financial

2

information. The information filed in this Court indicates that Anderson's expected monthly
income is $773. (DE 2, Aff.) He filed a motion for pauper status before the Sixth Circuit
indicating that his monthly income was $2,773. (DE 81-1, Mem. at 4.) His home is valued at
$25,000 and his vehicle is valued at $1200. He reports monthly expenses of $1,272. After
considering the fees incurred by the defendants, the need to deter future frivolous filings by
Anderson, and Anderson's ability to pay any sanction, the Court hereby ORDERS as
follows:
1) Defendant Horn's motion for attorney's fees and costs (DE 80) is GRANTED.
Anderson MUST PAY Horn attorney's fees and costs of $720;
2) The motion by defendant Thomas Quisenberry (DE 81) is GRANTED. Anderson
MUST PAY Quisenberry attorney's fees and costs of $2700; and
3) The motion by defendants Council Oaks and Short for attorney's fees and costs
(DE 82) is GRANTED. Anderson MUST PAY Council Oaks and Short a total of
$7,300 in attorney's fees and costs.

August 24, 2018

Signed By:
Karen K. CaJj
United States District Judge

3