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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?