From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Banks v. Niclkin

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 1, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1127 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1127.

February 1, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2010, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 109) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in which plaintiff seeks to impose sanctions against defendants based upon the conduct of three chaplains employed at the Federal Correctional Institution at Yazoo City, Mississippi, plaintiff's present place of incarceration, and it appearing that the chaplains are not named as defendants and that the defendants that are named in this action cannot be sanctioned for the conduct of non-parties under Rule 11 (encompassing representations made to the court via a pleading, written motion, or other paper submitted by an attorney or unrepresented party), and it further appearing that plaintiff has failed to specify the Rule 11(b) conduct which warrants sanctions, FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2) (stating that a motion for sanctions must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b)), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 109) is DENIED.

Plaintiff alleges that Chaplains Holsten, Tofflemirei, and Tigner confiscated several religious compact discs in retaliation for his participation in a deposition taken in relation to this action.


Summaries of

Banks v. Niclkin

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 1, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1127 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2010)
Case details for

Banks v. Niclkin

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK BANKS, Plaintiff v. JULIE NICLKIN, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 1, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-1127 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2010)