Little v. Washington State et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying plaintiff's 23 Motion for Sanctions; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (CL)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11

_______________________________________
)
BRENDA JOYCE LITTLE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
WASHINGTON STATE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C13-1284RSL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Sanctions Under 28

14

U.S.C. § 1927 or Under Court’s Own Inherent Powers.” Dkt. # 23. Plaintiff argues that the

15

attorneys for the State of Washington have attempted to mislead the Court regarding the

16

procedural history of plaintiff’s claims and/or the law of res judicata and that the filing of a

17

motion to dismiss in this case is merely a delay tactic that should be sanctioned. Plaintiff also

18

argues that counsel’s use of [sic] when quoting from plaintiff’s memoranda is sanctionable.

19

The Court disagrees. As discussed in the order of dismissal, plaintiff filed legally

20

defective claims against the State of Washington. The fact that opposing counsel drew attention

21

to the impediments to her claims on behalf of his client does not constitute bad faith, fraud, or

22

brazenly unethical behavior. Nor does the use of an accepted convention to indicate a quotation

23

that contains nonstandard grammar and/or spelling amount to anything other than a faithful

24

rendition of plaintiff’s sometimes difficult prose. Her leap from counsel’s unspecified use of

25

[sic] to charges of race baiting is unsupported, unreasonable, and irresponsible.

26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

2
3

Dated this 12th day of December, 2013.

A
Robert S. Lasnik

4
5

United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

-2-