Smith v. Homes et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 56 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 7/7/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

WILLIE SMITH,

7

3:13-cv-00202-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

ORDER

HOMES, et. al.,

10
11
12

Defendants.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. # 56.)1 Defendants filed a
response. (Doc. # 60.) No reply was filed.

13

I. BACKGROUND

14

In this action, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with a claim for retaliation against

15

defendants Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) SDCC Caseworker Homes, SDCC

16

Associate Warden of Programs C. Burson, and SDCC Warden Brian E. Williams. (Pl.'s Am.

17

Compl., Doc. # 32; Screening Order, Doc. # 5.)2 Plaintiff alleges that on April 21, 2011, he was

18

transferred to SDCC from High Desert State Prison (HDSP) after he was beaten and denied

19

medical treatment. (Doc. # 32 at 4.) On April 22, 2011, he asserts that he was taken to a review

20

hearing by defendant Homes to be released from solitary confinement; however, once defendant

21

Homes learned that an NDOC officer was being investigated for assaulting Plaintiff, Homes

22

refused to allow Plaintiff to be released into general population and he was held in solitary

23

confinement for three months as a form of punishment. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he contacted

24

defendant Williams about the situation, to no avail. (Id. at 4-5.) He further avers that on June 13,

25

2011, he filed a grievance on the issue that was denied by defendant Burson, confirming

26
27

1

28

2

Refers to court's docket number.

To date, only defendants Homes and Williams have been served. Plaintiff has been given an additional
period of time to effectuate service on C. Burson. (See Doc. # 53.)

1

Williams' policy of violating inmates' civil rights. (Id. at 5.)

2

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff previously litigated and

3

settled claims related to an alleged assault occurring at HDSP on March 24, 2011, in 3:12-cv-

4

00024-LRH-VPC, and the terms of the written settlement agreement included a release of all

5

claims provision that bars Plaintiff from asserting his claims in this action.

6
7

The court has issued a report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss be denied.
(Doc. # 57.)

8

Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to impose sanctions against Defendants under

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that Defendants filed their motion to dismiss based

10

on false information. (Doc. # 56 at 2.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants' claim in the motion to

11

dismiss that Plaintiff previously litigated and agreed to settle all claims related to an alleged

12

assault that occurred in 2012 now bars his claims in this action is not true. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff

13

requests that sanctions in the amount of $200 be imposed upon Defendants and paid to Plaintiff.

14

(Id. at 4.)

15

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because he failed to comply

16

with Rule 11's safe harbor provision by serving a copy of the motion on Defendants twenty-one

17

days before it was filed. (Doc. # 60 at 1-2.) They further assert that Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with

18

his prior settlement agreement is not grounds for imposing sanctions under Rule 11. (Id. at 3.)
II. DISCUSSION

19
20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states that pleadings, motions or other papers will not

21

be presented to the court for an improper purpose and the contentions contained in such papers

22

will be supported by the law and factual contentions have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

11(b). If the rule is violated, the court may impose appropriate sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

11(c)(1).

25

Defendants are correct that Rule 11 contains a safe harbor provision which requires a

26

motion for sanctions to be served twenty-one days before it is filed, to allow the asserted violator

27

to correct the impropriety. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff apparently did not serve the motion

28

on Defendants twenty-one days before filing it, in contravention of Rule 11(c)(2). This alone is a

-2-

1

basis to deny Plaintiff's motion.

2

In addition, while the court issued a report and recommendation denying the motion to

3

dismiss, the court does not find that the motion was presented for an improper purpose under

4

Rule 11(b). Instead, Defendants advanced an argument with their interpretation of a settlement

5

agreement previously entered into by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was permitted to argue, as he did,

6

that the settlement agreement does not apply to bar the claims asserted in this action.

7

For these reasons, the court finds the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 would be

8

improper. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 56) is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12
13

DATED: July 7, 2014.
__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-