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

Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute on Liability of Counsel, Unlike § 1927 and Rule 11, Precludes Award

Supreme Court — Federal Arbitration Act — Inherent Power May Be Controlled or Overridden by Statute or Rule — When the District Court Compels Arbitration, It Must Stay and Cannot Dismiss The Federal Action — “Shall Means Shall”

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

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