Joiner v. Delo

7 Citing cases

  1. Carman v. Treat

    7 F.3d 1379 (8th Cir. 1993)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that a pro se litigant cannot disregard the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

    violation that Carman would be found guilty of the violation regardless of what his witnesses said because Pettus was employed by the Department of Corrections. Carman also claimed that Pettus had stated that two dismissed conduct violations were being held against him to prevent Carman from filing any more lawsuits against the Department of Corrections. Even if Carman's allegations are true, they do not link Pettus' statements to the defendants. At the time of the alleged retaliatory actions, Carman was incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center. The record contains no evidence that the Kansas City, Missouri, defendants caused Jefferson City correctional officers to commit any retaliatory actions against Carman. Carman may have believed that he had been the victim of retaliatory actions, and he may also have believed that the defendants had been responsible for those actions. His subjective belief and pro se status, however, do not insulate him from the reach of Rule 11. Joiner v. Delo, 905 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir. 1990). We also note that Carman's response did not mention some of his most serious allegations — that he had been beaten, threatened, and denied medical care.

  2. Bachman v. Bachman

    8:19-CV-276 (D. Neb. Dec. 9, 2021)

    See Am. Inmate Paralegal Assoc, v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir. 1988) ("[T]he voluminous amount of frivolous documents submitted by appellants-all typed-in connection with this litigation supports the dismissal with prejudice . . . ."); Carman v. Treat, 7 F.3d 1379, 1382 (8th Cir. 1993) (upholding dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for filing a motion that was not well-grounded in fact); Joiner v. Delo, 905 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for blatantly misrepresenting the record). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 encompasses a litigant's duty to refrain from filing frivolous motions.

  3. Brown v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

    276 F.R.D. 599 (D. Minn. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Dismissing complaint as sanction for copying from a complaint in a different case

    Notably, the Eighth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed the sanction of dismissal for such (or similar) malfeasance. See, e.g.,Carman, 7 F.3d at 1381-82 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice under Rule 11 for " making allegations that had no basis in fact" ); Joiner v. Delo, 905 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir.1990) (same); Am. Inmate Paralegal Ass'n v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir.1988) ( per curiam ) (dismissal appropriate under Rule 11 even when certain of plaintiffs' contentions might have had merit, due to numerous other frivolous submissions). Other courts have reached the same conclusion.

  4. Fishman v. Ford

    No. CV-07-1106-PHX-LOA (D. Ariz. Jun. 12, 2007)

    Moreover, Plaintiff is cautioned that persistence in filing lawsuits in federal court without a factual or legal basis supporting subject-matter jurisdiction may result in the imposition of sanctions against him as authorized by Rule 11, FED.R.CIV.P., which is equally applicable to a pro se litigant as it is to an attorney. See, Joiner v. Delo, 905 F.2d 206 (8th Cir. 1990); Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir. 1994). Because the Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

  5. Wilson v. Taylor

    466 F. Supp. 2d 567 (D. Del. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that inmates have no right to pursue claims based on violations of internal DOC policies and procedures, except those related to inmate grievance procedures which are made available to all inmates

    .R.Civ.P. 11(c). Dismissal, however, is only employed as a sanction in rare and limited circumstances, such as when a litigant makes untruthful statements or blatant misrepresentations to the Court, Joiner v.Delo, 905 F.2d 206, 207-08 (8th Cir. 1990), or fails to comply with an order of the Court.Vakalis v. Shawmut Corp., 925 F.2d 34, 36 (1st Cir. 1991). In this case, it is not clear that a Rule 11 violation occurred.

  6. Kemin Foods v. Pigmentos Vegetables Del Centro

    384 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Iowa 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Finding of patent validity necessitates dismissal of defendant's Walker Process counterclaim as unsupportable as a matter of law because it is premised on a finding that the patents-in-suit are invalid and unenforceable

    Dismissal with prejudice has been found in some cases to be a proper sanction for a Rule 11 violation. See, e.g., Carman, 7 F.3d at 1382; Peerless Indus. Paint Coatings Co. v. Canam Steel Corp., 979 F.2d 685, 687 (8th Cir. 1992); Joiner v. Delo, 905 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir. 1990); American Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir. 1988). In addition, Kemin seeks reasonable attorneys' fees and costs expended in relation to the present motion.

  7. Slangal v. Getzin

    148 F.R.D. 691 (D. Neb. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    Joiner v. Delo, 905 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir.1990); American Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 61-62 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 996, 109 S.Ct. 565, 102 L.Ed.2d 590 (1988). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure, or failure to abide by an order of the court.