Carroll et al v. Chase Bank et al

Filing 26

RULING denying 7 Motion for Court to Rule on Violation of Debtors Constitutional Rights. Signed by Judge Frank J. Polozola on 11/17/2011. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WILLIAM D. CARROLL, JR. AND
CAROLYN K. CARROLL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO.

11-684-FJP-CN

CHASE BANK, SAMERA L. ABIDE

RULING
William D. Carroll, Jr. and Carolyn K. Carroll have filed a
motion

for

the

Court

constitutional rights.”1

to

rule

on

“violations

of

debtors

This motion attempts to have the Court

rule on a matter that has not yet been ruled on by the Bankruptcy
Court.

Thus, the Court is without jurisdiction to rule on this

motion.

To the extent the Carrolls are filing a suit against the

Bankruptcy Judge, the papers are not in proper form and clearly
violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is necessary that
a separate complaint be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the defendant be served.
It is also clear that the Carrolls have embarked on a plan to
file continuous motions which are frivolous and only designed to
delay the administration of justice and harass the Court and the
parties involved in this case.

This Court will not allow the

Carrolls to act in such a disruptive manner.
The Court has previously warned the Carrolls that should the

1

Rec. Doc. No. 7.

Doc#47613

Court find their actions taken in this case as frivolous, the Court
will impose sanctions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the inherent power of the Court to impose sanctions.
It is clear that sanctions are warranted where a party shows bad
faith by “delaying or disrupting the litigation or hampering
enforcement of a court order.”

Primus Auto. Fin. Servs. V.

Bartarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Hutto v.
Finney, 473 U.S. 678, 689 n. 14 (1978)); Ocean-Oil Expert Witness,
Inc. V. Ashton O’Dwyer, (www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/09/0930829.0.wpd)
The facts of this case in both the Bankruptcy Court and in the
District Court demonstrate an egregious pattern of conduct that has
disrupted these proceedings and evidenced a complete lack of
respect for the dignity and authority of the Bankruptcy Court and
this Court.

The Court cannot allow parties, even those acting pro

se, to engage in bad faith and wilful abuse of the judicial
process.

The fact that the Carrolls are proceeding pro se does not

give them the right to disrupt and delay proceedings; fail to
follow the orders and rules of the Bankruptcy Court, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and the local rules of the District and
Bankruptcy Courts.
Therefore:
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of William D. Carroll, Jr. and
Carolyn K. Carroll to have the Court rule on their motion entitled
“Motion for Court to Rule on Violation of Debtors Constitutional
Rights” is hereby DENIED.
The Court reserves the right to issue an order at a hearing
Doc#47613

set for November 21, 2011, why the Court shall not impose sanctions
on William D. Carroll, Jr. and Carolyn K. Carroll for their
inappropriate conduct in this case in both the Bankruptcy Court and
this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 17, 2011.

S
FRANK J. POLOZOLA

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Doc#47613