Robinson v. Tacoma Community College

Filing 15

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER and Order by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 13 Motion to Admit filed by plaintiff.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 12 CASE NO. C12-5614 BHS ORDER ENTERING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADMIT Defendant. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Barbara Stuart Robinson’s 15 (“Robinson”) motion to admit evidence (Dkt. 13) and review of the file. 16 On July 10, 2012, Robinson filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1. 17 On July 13, 2012, the undersigned granted the motion (Dkt. 5) and accepted Robinson’s 18 complaint (Dkt. 6). Robinson alleges that she was denied admission to Defendant 19 Tacoma Community College (“TCC”) on the basis of a handicap. Id. In support of her 20 complaint, Robinson submitted a class add/drop form containing what appears to be the 21 signature of three instructors allowing Robinson to attend their courses. See Dkt. 6–1. 22 ORDER - 1 1 Robinson, however, alleges that she was barred from enrolling at TCC for the summer 2 quarter. Dkt. 7. 3 Based on previous lawsuits, Robinson has been declared a vexatious litigant in this 4 district. See Robinson v. Tacoma Community College, Cause No. C11-5151BHS (W.D. 5 Wash.), Dkt. 109. The undersigned entered a Bar Order against Robinson based upon 6 TCC’s showing that Robinson’s numerous filings were frivolous. Id. 7 On July 20, 2012, Robinson filed a motion to admit evidence. Dkt. 13. 8 “Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very 9 creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and 10 submission to their lawful mandates.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–46 11 (1991) (citing Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227, 5 L. Ed. 242 (1821)). In the 12 exercise of its discretion under these inherent powers, the Court possesses “the ability to 13 fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” 14 Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44–45. Imposition of sanctions is appropriate for actions such as 15 the “willful disobedience of a court order.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43–46. “[O]utright 16 dismissal of a lawsuit, which we had upheld in Link [v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 17 630–631 (1962)], is a particularly severe sanction, yet is within the court’s discretion.” 18 Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45 (citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 19 (1980)). 20 In this case, the Court must act to control the management of this matter. Upon 21 review of Robinson’s instant motion, the Court finds that the motion is frivolous. Based 22 on this frivolous motion and Robinson’s previous interaction with this Court, the Court ORDER - 2 1 finds that there is a need to enter a case management order and forewarn Robinson of the 2 consequences of her actions. Although there may exist a kernel of a discrimination claim 3 in Robinson’s complaint, neither the Court nor TCC will be subjected to actions that 4 needlessly increase the cost of litigation or unnecessarily delay the administration of 5 justice. Therefore, not only will the Court deny Robinson’s motion sua sponte, the Court 6 will also enter the following case management order: 7 1. In the event that Robinson files any subsequent motion for relief, TCC need not respond unless the Court requests a response. 8 2. If Robinson continues to file frivolous motions or engages in other actions that delay the determination of the merits of her claims, then the Court may impose the particularly severe sanction of dismissal. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2012. 12 A 13 14 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

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?