Snelling v. Haynes et al

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Chases Motion to Restore and Determine Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Lonnie D. Snelling (Doc. 80) is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snellings Motion to Re store and Determine Existing Motions (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in part. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Chases Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 50) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snellings Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 54) is D ENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snellings Amended Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 68) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snellings Additional Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 83) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plai ntiff Lonnie Snellings Motion to Strike (Doc. 69) is DENIED as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snellings Motion for OrderRequiring All Parties to Personally Appear (Doc. 70) is DENIED as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snellings Motion to Strike(Doc. 71) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 4/11/11. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LONNIE D. SNELLING,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J.D. HAYNES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV00925 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the cross-motions of Plaintiff Lonnie D.
Snelling and Defendant Matthew Chase for sanctions (Docs. 50, 54, 68, 80, 83, 84)
regarding two filings purportedly made by Defendant J.D. Haynes. Chase seeks sanctions
against Snelling alleging that these two documents were not actually made by Haynes, but
were drafted and submitted to the Court by Snelling, “with the aim to commit two separate
frauds upon the court.” (Doc. 50 at 3.) Snelling seeks sanctions against Chase alleging
that it was Chase, through his attorney of record, that attempted to commit fraud upon the
Court by either dictating or authoring the allegedly forged documents “with the intent to
later claim that said documents were written and filed by plaintiff.” (Doc. 54 at 2-3.)
Background
On October 12, 2010, Haynes purportedly made and filed a motion for an
extension of time to respond to Snelling’s complaint. (Doc. 44.) This motion bears a
signature stating “J.D. Haynes - J. D. Haynes, unrepresented defendant.” Id. On
November 12, 2010, Haynes purportedly made and filed a motion for an additional

extension of time to respond to Snelling’s complaint. (Doc. 47.) This motion bears a
signature stating “J.D. Haynes - J. D. Haynes - unrepresented defendant.” Id.
On January 13, 2011, Chase filed a motion for sanctions against Snelling, alleging
that Snelling forged and filed these two documents. (Doc. 50.) On February 4, 2011,
Snelling filed his cross-motion for sanctions alleging that Chase’s attorney had forged and
filed the documents. (Doc. 54.) On February 4, 2011, Snelling filed an affidavit,
swearing under oath that he neither wrote the documents, nor submitted them to the Court.
(Doc. 57.)
On February 9, 2010, Haynes purportedly made a third motion for an extension of
time to respond to Snelling’s complaint, but the Clerk of the Court noted that the
“[d]ocument was submitted in the Clerk’s Office by a non-party.” (Doc. 60.) This motion
bears a signature stating “J.D. Haynes/mhb unrepresented defendant.” Id. The “mhb”
notation appears to be initials. On February 23, 2011, Chase further alleged that this third
motion for an extension of time was also a forgery, and asked that it be considered in
connection with Chase’s motion for sanctions. (Doc. 66.)
On March 1, 2011, Snelling filed an affidavit, swearing under oath that he neither
wrote any of the allegedly forged documents, nor submitted them to the Court. (Doc. 67.)
Snelling also made an amended motion for sanctions against Chase, arguing that despite
the Clerk’s notation that a non-party filed the February 9, 2011 document, Chase
continued to claim that Snelling had forged and filed the document. (Doc. 68).
On March 9, 2011, the Court entered an Order dismissing the federal claims, for
failure to state a claim, and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.
2

The Court also denied the pending motions for sanctions without prejudice, allowing the
parties time to refile any motions they did not deem mooted by the Court’s Order. (Doc.
76.) On March 21, 2011, Chase filed a motion to restore his earlier motion for sanctions.
(Doc. 80.) On March 28, 2011, Snelling filed an additional motion for sanctions against
Chase and his attorney, and also filed a motion to restore his earlier motions for sanctions.
Discussion
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a
party personally if the party is unrepresented . . . By presenting to the court
a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . [an] unrepresented party
certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not
being presented for any improper purpose . . . ; (2) the claims, defenses,
and other legal contentions are warranted . . . ; (3) the factual contentions
have evidentiary support or . . . will likely have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the
denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or . . . are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of information . . . [T]he court may
impose an appropriate sanction on any . . . party that violated the rule or is
responsible for the violation. . . . If warranted, the court may award to the
prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
incurred for the motion.
In determining whether a violation of Rule 11 has occurred, the Court is to apply
an objective standard of reasonableness. O'Connell v. Champion Int'l Corp., 812 F.2d
393, 395 (8th Cir. 1987). Rule 11 sanctions are not to be imposed lightly and the Court
must approach the question of imposition of sanctions with circumspection. Id.
Chase argues that the motions at issue appear to have been written by Snelling;
however, Chase provides no proof to support that allegation. Chase relies on the affidavits
of John Houseman, a Missouri licensed private investigator who met with Haynes
3

regarding the documents at issue, and Stephen McKasson, a document examiner, but
neither affidavit concludes that Snelling wrote the motions at issue. Mr. Houseman attests
that Haynes told him that he had not signed any of the motions at issue, nor had Haynes
authorized anyone to sign his name on the motions. (Doc. 66-1 at ¶¶ 6-7.) However, Mr.
Houseman also attests that Haynes told him that the motions were in the handwriting of
his daughter, Mary Lou and, therefore, Mr. Houseman did not know whether Haynes’
daughter was the person who filed the three requests for extensions with the Court. (Doc.
66-1 at ¶¶ 9-10.) Mr. McKasson attests that, based upon his comparison of the motions at
issue with three documents known to contain the real signature of Haynes, it was his
conclusion that Haynes did not write his name on the motions at issue. (Doc. 66-2 at ¶ 3.)
Snelling filed two affidavits, swearing under oath that he neither wrote the motions at
issue, nor submitted them to the Court. (Doc. 57 at ¶6, Doc. 67 at ¶¶ 6,8.) The Clerk’s
notation regarding the February 9, 2011 motion also indicates that it was filed by a nonparty. (Doc. 60.) On the record before it, Chase has not met his burden to persuade the
Court that Snelling wrote or filed the motions at issue, and therefore the Court will deny
Chase’s motion for sanctions.
The Court further finds that Snelling has failed to put forth any evidence
supporting his allegations that Chase’s attorney wrote or filed the motions at issue with the
Court, and accordingly his original motion for sanctions (Doc. 54) will be denied. The
Court also finds the arguments raised in Snelling’s amended motion for sanctions to be
misplaced. Chase’s reply brief (Doc. 66) was filed timely pursuant to an extension
granted by the Court on February 17, 2011 (Doc. 64). And, as an officer of the Court,
4

Chase’s attorney had a duty to report what he believed to be an ongoing fraud being
perpetrated upon the Court. While Chase argued in his reply brief that the February 9,
2011 motion was a forgery, he did not argue that Snelling also had filed the motion, and
Chase admitted that the Clerk noted that the motion was filed by a non-party, as indicated
by the signature block The Court therefore finds that sanctions against Chase are not
warranted and will deny Snelling’s amended motion for sanctions.
Finally, Snelling’s additional motion for sanctions (Doc. 83) seeks sanctions
against Chase because, while Chase’s attorney electronically filed Document 80 with the
Court on March 21, 2011, and stated in the certificate of service that said document was
mailed on March 21, 2011, the envelope received by Snelling had a postage cancellation
date of March 22, 2011. In his response to this motion, Chase represents to the Court that
his attorney placed Document 80 in the postbox under the care and custody of the United
States Postal Service on March 21, 2011, and the postal service must have postmarked the
envelope the next day. On the record before it, the Court finds that Chase’s attorney did
not make a misrepresentation to the Court in his certificate of service and will deny
Snelling’s additional motion for sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Chase’s Motion to Restore
and Determine Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Lonnie D. Snelling (Doc. 80) is
GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Motion to Restore
and Determine Existing Motions (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in part.
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Chase’s Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 50) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Amended Motion
for Sanctions (Doc. 68) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Additional Motion
for Sanctions (Doc. 83) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Motion to Strike
(Doc. 69) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Motion for Order
Requiring All Parties to Personally Appear (Doc. 70) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Lonnie Snelling’s Motion to Strike
(Doc. 71) is DENIED as moot.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of April, 2011.

6