Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-1406 C/W 03-2029
December 4, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11 (Ref: 03-2029; Rec. Doc. 201) filed by defendant Kathleen Smiley against plaintiff James Ingersoll, Jr. The motion, set for hearing on December 3, 2003, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Smiley asks the Court to impose sanctions against Ingersoll Including costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 11. Smiley asserts that Ingersoll filed suit against her for the improper purpose of harassment, unnecessary delay, and to Increase litigation costs. Ingersoll filed a response and asserts that he filed suit in state court at the suggestion of ins former counsel.
The purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to deter the filing of groundless and frivolous lawsuits. McCampbell v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 982 F. Supp. 445, 447 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (advisory committee notes); Thomas v. Capital Security Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 877 (5th Cir. 1988)). The imposition of sanctions lies within the court's sound discretion. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)). Although the Court can impose sanctions against an unrepresented party, the plaintiff's pro se status is a factor for the Court to consider. Id. at 448. Typically, a pro se plaintiff should be sanctioned "only after successive attempts to press a wholly frivolous claim." Id. (citing Reinert v. O'Brien, 805 F. Supp. 576, 579 (N.D. Ill. 1992)).
The Court noted when it granted Ingersoll's voluntary motion to dismiss that ins claims appeared to be wholly without merit. The Court is also aware that Ingersoll filed essentially the same claims in Civil Action 03-2029 (removed from state court) as those that were already pending in Civil Action 01-1406. Nevertheless, the Court is not persuaded that the deterrence goals of Rule 11 would be furthered by imposing monetary sanctions against Ingersoll at tins time. Further, "injunctions against filing future lawsuits without a prior warning are strongly disfavored." McCamobell, 982 F. Supp, at 449 (citingMendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993);Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1988)). Ingersoll should take heed, however, that any attempt to file future lawsuits arising out of the same conduct that gave rise to Civil Actions 01-1406 and 03-2029 will be met with a swift and appropriate sanction.
The Court also notes that Smiley represented Nicole Ingersoll in Civil Action 02-614. The Court dismissed that action at the defendants' behest. The Court also denied a motion for sanctions filed by defendants against Smiley and Ms.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11 (Ref: 03-2029; Rec. Doc. 201) filed by defendant Kathleen Smiley should be and is hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana.