Kippen v. Pack et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 129 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 3/8/13 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
STANLEY JOHN KIPPEN,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
STEVEN PACK, PRESIDENT OF ALLIED
MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT CO., INC.,
Case No. 1:10-CV-119 TS
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a number of filings by Plaintiff
Stanley John Kippen, including his most recent Motion to Reopen Case. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion and warn Plaintiff that continued filings
may result in sanctions and/or filing restrictions.
The relevant facts of this case have been set out previously and need not be repeated.1
Plaintiff previously requested the Court reopen his case,2 but that request was rejected by the
Court.3 Since the Court denied Plaintiff’s prior request to reopen, the Court has received two
objections to that order,4 a response to correspondence from the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff
regarding this case,5 and a reply to Defendant’s response to the above-listed filings.6 All of these
documents request the same relief: that this case be reopened.
In addition to his filings here, Plaintiff has sought a rehearing of his appeal before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has also asked that court to compel
this Court to reopen his case. Both requests were denied.7
Now, despite being informed by this Court, the Clerk of Court, and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that his case will not be reopened, Plaintiff has filed a
new Motion to Reopen.
See Docket No. 122.
Docket No. 119.
Docket No. 122.
Docket Nos. 123, 127.
Docket No. 124.
Docket No. 126.
Docket No. 131, Exs. A-B; see also Docket No. 128.
For substantially the same reasons previously stated, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reopen. Plaintiff’s Motion, like his previous filings, rests upon the false premise that
this case was ordered reopened by the Federal Circuit. As has been explained, it was not.
Plaintiff further argues that he has additional claims that he seeks to litigate against Defendant,
but this is not the forum for those claims. This case is at an end.
Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rule 11(b) provides:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by
signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or 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, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) 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;
(3) 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; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.8
Pro se parties, like Mr. Kippen, are subject to the requirements of Rule 11.9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
Poll v. Paulson, No. 1:06-CV-144 TC, 2008 WL 118076, at *4 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2008)
(“Parties who file lawsuits on a pro se basis are not absolved from the requirements of Rule 11
and are treated the same for purposes of this rule as if they were attorneys.”). Plaintiff’s reliance
on 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is unavailing.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2):
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must
describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must
be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the
challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or
appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the
court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.10
Defendant’s request for sanctions does not comply with these requirements and, thus,
must be denied.
The Court may, on its own initiative, order a “party to show cause why conduct
specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).”11 The Court declines to do so
here, but the Court puts Plaintiff on notice that future filings of this nature may result in Rule 11
sanctions and/or restrictions on his ability to file documents in this Court.12
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (Docket No. 129) is DENIED.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3).
See Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Federal courts have the
inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored
restrictions in appropriate circumstances.”).
DATED March 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
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?