New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Inherent Power Sanctions Appropriate to Punish Violation of Vexatious Litigant Injunction

Download PDF

Johnson v. Taco Bell Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31370 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023):

ORDER

Alfred A. Johnson, Sr., a pro se Ohio prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his civil action and imposition of filing restrictions. He now moves to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). For the reasons that follow, Johnson's IFP motion is denied.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sanctioned Johnson in 2022 after he endangered court staff by sending a baggie of fentanyl with a document that he tried to file in a case there. See Johnson v. Mgmt. Training Corp., No. 3:22-cv-01482 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2022). The district court ordered that if Johnson filed a new case, the court must first "determine whether to permit the filing." Id., slip op. at 2.

Johnson then filed this suit in the Southern District of Ohio against Taco Bell, seeking $20 million in damages because he found a foreign object in food that he ordered from a store in Carey, Ohio, causing him stomach problems. In his complaint, Johnson noted that he had filed a state-court case about this incident, which had been dismissed and not properly appealed. Because Carey, Ohio, is in the Northern District of Ohio, the Southern District transferred the case [*2]  there, and the district court screened it in accordance with its 2022 order. The district court held that the complaint "lacks merit" and dismissed it. Johnson v. Taco Bell Corp. Cal., No. 3:22 CV 2319, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6180, 2023 WL 166008, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2023). Given Johnson's prior dangerous actions and his "apparent attempt to circumvent the Court's" sanctions order, the district court prohibited him from using the mail to submit documents and from filing new lawsuits or documents without first obtaining leave of court. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6180, [WL] at *2. The district court also denied Johnson's motion to proceed IFP on appeal. Johnson now appeals and moves for IFP status from this court.

A party that makes the requisite showing of poverty will be granted leave to proceed IFP if his appeal is being taken in good faith, that is, if it is not frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Owens v. Keeling, 461 F.3d 763, 775 (6th Cir. 2006). An appeal is frivolous when "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989).

Johnson's appeal lacks an arguable basis in law. His pleadings are devoid of factual allegations that establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and Johnson admitted that he already unsuccessfully litigated the same claim in state court. Moreover, the district court properly used its inherent authority to sanction Johnson for his bad-faith attempt to circumvent the filing restrictions [*3]  imposed in 2022. See White v. Phillips, 66 F.4th 615, 619 (6th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 217 L. Ed. 2d 144, 2023 WL 6558678 (U.S. 2023) (holding that Supreme Court precedent "permit[s] the district court to resort to its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct" (quoting First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501, 514 (6th Cir. 2002))).

For these reasons, Johnson's motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Unless he pays the $505 filing fee to the district court within thirty days of the entry of this order, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice