Brown v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER granting 28 & 45 Motions to Supplement & denying 21 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 4/18/2011. (kjm1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

YUSUF BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:10-cv-00822
Judge GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

v.

WARDEN ROSS CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to supplement exhibits one
and two of his Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 2 and 7) with his sworn
declaration. (ECF No. 28.)
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend and supplement his preliminary
injunction motions. (ECF No. 45.) Accordingly, in determining whether to issue a preliminary
injunction, in addition to considering Plaintiff’s Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF Nos. 2 and 7) and the parties’ responses, replies, and
supplements to these Motions (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 23, and 28), the Court will also consider
Plaintiff’s Supplement to his Motions for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 45), Defendant’s
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Supplemented Motion (ECF No. 49), and Plaintiff’s
Reply (ECF No. 52).
Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 21.) In this
Motion, Plaintiff seeks an “Order of Contempt of Court against . . . [D]efendants and . . .

[D]efendant[s’] counsel for knowingly submitting false testimony to this Court” and a telephonic
hearing. (Pl.’s Mot. for Sanctions 2, ECF No. 21.) Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that “to the best of [the attorney’s] knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the presentation the attorney makes
to the court “is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation” and “the factual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1), (3).
Rule 11 also requires that the “claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law
or for establishing new law.” Id. at (b)(2). Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants’ or
their counsel’s conduct violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) such that sanctions under
Rule 11(c) are warranted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 18, 2011

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
United States Magistrate Judge

2