Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

§ 1927 Sanctions Imposed on Non-Lawyer, Pro Se Litigant

From Gitler v. State of Ohio, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61295 (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2009):

Although § 1927 on its face limits who may be sanctioned to an attorney or other person allowed to conduct cases, courts in the Sixth Circuit can sanction pro se litigants under that provision even after dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tropf v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 929, 938-39 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1919 and Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 137-39 (1992)); Grossman v. Garratt & Evans, P.C., 1993 WL 140913, * 2 (6th Cir.); Moore v. Int'l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, Local 8, 2003 WL 22722931, * 1 (N.D. Ohio); Amadasu v. Holloway Credit Solutions, LLC, 2009 WL 948767, * 8 (S.D. Ohio) (sanctioning a pro se litigant while noting that the Sixth Circuit previously upheld such sanctions).

I sanction Gitler [$2,000] under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because she has continued to file meritless pleadings after having been notified that doing so would result in sanctions for her continued maintenance of unfounded, frivolous and vexatious litigation.

The only pro se litigants properly subject to sanction under § 1927 are lawyers appearing pro se.

Share this article:


Recent Posts