scott v. sanders. april 22, 2011 order

8/6/2019 Scott v. Sanders. April 22, 2011 Order

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scott-v-sanders-april-22-2011-order 1/14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION

AT COVINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2010-77 (WOB)

STEVEN SCOTT

VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

.Eastern District of KentuckyF I LED

APR 11 2011

AT COVINGTONlESLIE G W/{ITMER

CLERK U S D I S H ~ I C T COURT

PLAINTIFF

ROB SANDERS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

This mat te r i s before the cour t on the motion fo r recovery

of cos ts and fees by defendants Rob Sanders and Leanne Beck

(Doc. 36) . The cour t has reviewed th i s mat te r and concludes

t ha t o ra l argument i s not necessary.

For the reasons discussed below, the cour t f inds tha t

defendants ' motion i s well taken.

Factual and Procedural Background

Pla in t i f f f i l ed t h i s c iv i l r igh ts ac t ion on Apr i l 7, 2010,

a l leg ing federa l and s t a t e claims fo r fa l se a r r e s t , abuse of

process , mal ic ious prosecut ion , and negl igence. (Doc. 1) The

substance of p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint was t ha t he had been

wrongful ly a r res ted and charged with th i rd-degree burgla ry .

Among o ther s , p l a i n t i f f named as defendants Rob Sanders , the

Commonwealth Attorney fo r Kenton County, and Leanne R. Beck, an

Ass is tan t Commonwealth Attorney in Sanders ' s of f i c e . (Doc. 1)



On June 17, 2010, t h i s cour t i ssued an Opinion and Order in

Howell v. Sanders , F. Supp.2d , Civ i l Action No. 09-

200(WOB), 2010 WL 2490343 (E.D. Ky. June 17, 2010), a c i v i l

r igh t s case a l so f i l ed by counse l fo r p l a i n t i f f 1 he re in aga ins t

Sanders . In Howell , t h i s cour t held t h a t Sanders was absolute ly

immune from s u i t , based upon long standing Supreme Court

precedent , where th e p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l eg a t i o n s o f misconduct in

re la t ion to her prosecut ion were based on ac t ions t aken by

Sanders dur ing th e j ud i c i a l phase of the cr imina l proceedings in

ques t ion . Id . a t *4-7.

The day a f t e r th e Howell opinion i s sued, counsel fo r

Sanders and Beck in t h i s ac t ion sen t an emai l to p l a i n t i f f ' s

counsel , s t a t i ng :

Dear Eric ,

Given Judge Ber te l sman ' s recent dec is ion in the Howell

mat te r which we have s e t fo r th below, we be l i eve it i s

c l e a r t h a t we w i l l a l so obta in a di smissa l in th e Scot t

mat t e r once Mr. Sanders and Ms. Beck a re p rope r ly served

and we so move th e Court . Based upon th e c l e a r law and

Judge Ber te l sman ' s opinion in th e Howell case , we bel ieve

proceeding with th e Scot t case w i l l be a waste of t ime fo r

both your c l i e n t and fo r us. Therefore , we respec t fu l ly

r eq u es t t h a t you vo lun ta r i ly dismiss your claim aga ins t

both Mr. Sanders and Ms. Beck in the Scot t mat te r .

1P la in t i f f ' s counsel as re fe r red to here in i s Eric c. Deters .

Ashley Bolender , a l so now l i s t ed as counsel of record fo r

p l a i n t i f f , was added a f t e r the f i l i ngs and even t s d i scussed

here in and d id not s ign any of th e re l evan t papers .

2



He fu r the r a l leged t ha t he had a r i g h t to have exculpatory

evidence produced to him. ( Id . 45)

P l a i n t i f f made no f ac tua l a l l ega t ions as to Sanders ,

a l leg ing only t ha t Sanders "knew t h a t i t s prosecut ing a t torneys

and othe r support s t a f f had an ongoing pol i cy , custom and/or

prac t i ce t ha t was caus ing cons t i tu t iona l r i g h t s ' v io la t ions . "

( Id . 55)

On September 17, 2010, Sanders and Beck moved to dismiss

the Amended Complaint aga ins t them on the b as i s o f prosecu to r ia l

immunity. (Doc. 24) S p ec i f i c a l l y , defendants noted t h a t a l l

ac t iv i t i e s a l l eg ed ly undertaken by Sanders and Beck occurred

dur ing th e advocacy s tage of p l a i n t i f f ' s prosecut ion . (Doc. 24

a t 3) On October 8, 2010, p l a i n t i f f f i l ed a response to

defendan t s ' motion to dismiss (Doc. 26), and defendants f i l e d a

reply on October 22, 2010. (Doc. 27)

The cour t held o ra l argument on th e motion to dismiss on

December 1, 2010. (Doc. 34) Afte r opening remarks by

defendants ' counsel , inc lud ing a discuss ion of th e c our t ' s

holding in th e Howell opin ion , p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel s t a t ed :

"Your Honor, t h i s was f i l ed before your dec i s ion in Howell. I

mean, we recognize t ha t . Okay?" (Doc. 34 a t 5) The discuss ion

proceeded, with the cour t not ing t h a t each of p l a i n t i f f ' s

arguments had been s pe c i f i c a l l y re j ec ted by opinions of the

4



Supreme Court , which had been summarized in the Howell opinion.

(Doc. 34 a t 6-8 , 14, 16)

The cour t fu r t h e r discussed the requ i rements of Rule 11 of

the Federa l Rules of C iv i l Procedure, not ing t ha t the

c e r t i f i c a t i o n conta ined in the Amended Complaint d id n ot comply

with the requ i rements of t ha t r u l e . (Doc. 34 a t 9-13, 17-19)

P la in t i f f ' s counsel responded, "I plead gu i l t y to t ha t , Your

Honor." (Doc. 34 a t 19)

The c o u r t ' s col loquy with p l a i n t i f f ' s counse l revea led t ha t

he had not , even up to t ha t t ime, done any i nves t iga t ion o r

discovery to determine a t what po in t Beck had become involved in

p l a i n t i f f ' s cr imina l p r o s e c u t i o n - a f a c t t ha t i s c r i t i c a l in

determining p r o s ecu to r i a l immunity. See Howell , 2010 WL 2490343

pass im. Therefore , the fo l lowing t r ansp i red :

THE COURT: I d o n ' t see anything in here o th e r than, you

know, t ha t she prosecuted the case apparent ly in good

f a i t h . And then when she r ea l i zed the f ingerp r in t wasn ' t

any good, she t r i ed to ge t out of it g r ace f u l l y . The

Supreme Cour t sa id , oh, t h a t ' s immune. She ' s immune fo r

t ha t .

(Doc. 34 a t 14)

When the cour t inqui red as to what Beck had done in

re la t ion to p l a i n t i f f ' s prosecut ion , defendan ts expla ined t ha t

Beck became invo lved on ly a f t e r the case had been bound over to

the grand ju ry a f t e r a pre l iminary f inding of probable cause had

5



been made by a judge. (Doc. 34 a t 14-16) Present ing a case to

the grand jury and proceeding with the prosecut ion a re p la in ly

advocacy func t ions pro tec ted by prosecu to r ia l immunity. See

Buck ley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993); Burns v.

Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 490-92 (1991); Imbler v . Pachtman, 424 U.S.

409, 430-31 (1976) . Yet, p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel made no pre - f i l i ng

e f f o r t to determine t h a t r a t h e r elementary f a c t . Therefore , the

cour t s t a t ed :

THE COURT: So now having heard t h i s s ta tement , i f

she put t ha t i n the form of an a f f ida v i t ,I

th ink she 'd beimmune. So I can requ i re he r to do t h a t i f you wish.

MR. DETERS: It's not- it's no t necessary . You can ru le

accordingly .

THE COURT: Okay. I th ink both Mr. Sanders and Ms. Beck

a re immune, and they w i l l be dismissed .

(Doc. 34 a t 20)

Hearing the c o u r t ' s ru l ing , p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel s t a t ed ,

"Your Honor, in l i g h t of the dec is ion in th e Howell case , your

dec is ion in t h i s case i s no t unexpected." (Doc. 34 a t 16 )

Thereaf te r , th e cour t ente red an order grant ing Sanders ' s and

Beck 's motion to dismiss . (Doc. 33)

On December 31, 2010, p l a i n t i f f f i l ed a Notice of Appeal to

the United S ta t e s Court of Appeals fo r the Six th C i r cu i t from

the order dismiss ing Sanders and Beck, purpor tedly under the

co l l a t e ra l orde r doc t r ine . (Doc. 35) Clear ly , t h i s appeal was

f r ivo lous .

6



On January 3, 2011, Sanders and Beck f i l ed th e i n s t a n t

motion fo r recovery of cos t s , expenses , and a t t o r n ey s ' fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. (Doc. 36) On February 14, 2011,

th e Sixth C i r cu i t dismissed p l a i n t i f f ' s appeal , pursuant to a

motion fo r volunta ry d i smissa l . (Doc. 40)

Analys i s

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, a cour t may award sanc t ions

aga ins t any a t to rney who "mul t ip l i e s the proceed ings in any case

unreasonably and vexa t ious ly . " The s t a tu t e provides t ha t in

such s i t u a t i o n s , th e cour t may requi re the a t to rney " to s a t i s fy

persona l ly the excess cos t s , expenses , and a t t o r n ey s ' fees

reasonably incurred because of such conduct ." 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

"A cour t may asse ss fees without f inding bad fa i th , but

[ t ]he re must be some conduct on the p a r t o f the sub jec t a t to rney

t h a t t r i a l judges , applying the co l l ec t ive wisdom of t h e i r

exper ience on th e bench, could agree f a l l s shor t of the

ob l iga t ions owed by a member of the b ar to the cour t and which,

as a r e s u l t , causes add i t iona l expense to th e opposing par ty . "

Royal Oak Entm' t , L.L.C. v. Ci ty o f Royal Oak, 316 F. App'x 482,

487 (6th Cir . 2009) (c i ta t ion and i n t e rn a l quota t ions omi t t ed) .

" In shor t , § 1927 sanc t ions requ i re a showing of something

l e ss than sub jec t ive bad fa i th , but something more than

negl igence o r incompetence. Thus, an a t to rney i s sanc t ionab le

7



when he i n t e n t i o n a l l y abuses the j ud i c i a l process o r knowingly

dis regards th e r i s k t h a t h is ac t ions w i l l need le s s ly mul t ip ly

proceedings . " Id . "Vexat iously mul t ip ly ing proceedings"

includes conduct where "an a t torney knows o r reasonab ly should

know t h a t a claim pursued i s f r ivo lous . " Id .

Having rev iewed these p r in c ip l e s , th e cour t w i l l n ot

belabor the mat te r . P la in t i f f ' s counse l ' s ac t ions here in have

v io la ted both th e l e t t e r and the s p i r i t of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and

Rule 11, a l though th e l a t t e r i s inappl icable here fo r procedura l

reasons .3 Even as o r i g i n a l l y pled , p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint a l leged

no f ac t s which, if t r u e , would e s t a b l i sh t h a t e i t h e r Sanders o r

Beck took ac t ions which would f a l l outs ide the pro tec t ions of

abso lu te p r o s ecu to r i a l immunity. As discussed dur ing o ra l

argument, a l l theor ies upon which p l a i n t i f f sought to s t a t e

cla ims a g a i n s t these defendants have been re j ec ted by the United

Sta tes Supreme Court .

3 Defendants have invoked only th e former prov i s ion , presumably

because they d id not op t to fol low Rule 11 ' s "safe harbor"

requ i rements . See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (2) . The cour t notes

t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s counse l ' s i nc lus ion of a b o i l e rp l a t e as s e r t i o n

on a complaint t ha t he has complied with Rule 11 does not ,

withou t more, requ i re a conclus ion t h a t he has ac tua l ly done so .

8



Moreover/ even i f p l a i n t i f f t s counsel misunderstood

prosecu to r ia l immunity when t h i s s u i t was or ig ina l ly f i l ed 1

4any

misunders tanding could reasonably have p e r s i s t e d no l a t e r than

the i ssuance of t h i s cour t 1 S opinion in Howell . In t h a t

opin ion 1 t h i s cour t gran ted a motion to dismiss by Sanders and/

in so doing/ reviewed a t l eng th Supreme Cour t preceden t on the

doc t r ine of p r o s ecu to r i a l immunity. No reasonable counsel could

have read t h a t opinion and not have rea l i zed t h a t the

a l l eg a t i o n s con ta ined in th e or ig ina l complaint he re in s t a t ed no

viab le claim aga ins t e i t h e r Sanders o r Beck.5

Indeed/ th e day a f t e r the Howell opinion issued/ counsel

fo r Sanders and Beck sen t an email to p l a i n t i f f t s counsel /

quoted above 1 r e sp e c t fu l l y reques t ing t h a t p l a i n t i f f vo lun ta r i ly

dismiss the claims aga ins t h i s c l i e n t s . (Doc. 36-3) Ins tead of

responding/ perhaps 1 "Let me t ake her depos i t i on and 1 if she i s

immune 1 I w i l l dismiss h er 11 he r ep l ied : "Not happening. 11 ( I d . )

This response evidences a contumacious d is regard fo r h is

profe s s iona l r e s pons ib i l i t i e s and of the app l i cab le s t a tu t e and

Civ i l Rules .

4 The Rule 11 c e r t i f i c a t i o n contained in th e o r i g i n a l complaint /

however/ sugges t s t ha t counsel was fu l ly aware o f the po ten t i a l

a pp l i c a b i l i t y of the immunity defense .5 Indeed 1 th e Howell opinion con ta ined no ne w pr inc ip les of law 1

but simply discussed ex i s t ing au thor i t i e s / most of them qui t e

venerable .

9



At the t ime defendan t s ' counsel made t h i s reques t , little

had taken place in t h i s case apar t from i t s f i l i ng and th e

i s suance of summons. Had p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel acknowledged th e

f u t i l i t y of the cla ims aga ins t Sanders and Beck and vo lun ta r i ly

dismissed them a t t ha t t ime, o r a f t e r reasonab le d i scovery ,

defendants would have incur red few expenses as a r e s u l t of t h i s

proceeding .

Ins tead , approximately one month l a t e r , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d th e

Amended Complaint , which added no new f ac tu a l a l l eg a t i o n s

aga ins t Sanders o r Beck b ut i n s t ead as se r ted aga ins t them the

same i n subs tan t i a l c la ims . Indeed, because the Amended

Complaint con ta ins an expanded preface regard ing prosecu to r ia l

immunity, th e cour t assumes t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s counse l had indeed

read the Howell opinion and th e cases it c i t e s but chose to

proceed in t h i s mat te r anyway.

Th e dia logue dur ing o ra l argument underscored p l a i n t i f f ' s

counse l ' s apparen t di s rega rd fo r the f ac t t ha t h is ac t ions had,

and were, need le s s ly mul t ip ly ing the proceedings as to Sanders

and Beck.

F i r s t , counsel a t tempted to j u s t i fy h is ac t ions by s t a t ing :

"You Honor, t h i s was f i l e d before your dec i s ion in Howell. I

mean, we recognize t ha t . Okay?" (Doc. 34 a t 5) The f ac t i s ,

as noted above, th e Amended Complaint which was th e sub jec t of

10



defendan t s ' motion to dismiss was f i l e d approximately one month

a f t e r the Howell opinion i ssued .

Second, as a l ready noted, it was apparent t ha t p l a i n t i f f ' s

counsel had done no pre - f i l i ng inves t iga t ion , as requi red by

Rule 11, to determine what ac t ions , i f any, had been taken by

Sanders o r Beck during th e p re - j u d i c i a l phase of th e cr imina l

proceedings aga ins t p l a i n t i f f . Although counsel s ta ted t h a t

they had f i l ed a sepa ra t e ac t ion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27

( "Pe t i t ion to Perpe tua te Testimony") to obta in pre - f i l i ng

discovery , Rule 27 i s not a proper veh ic l e fo r t ha t purpose , and

the Magis t ra te Judge so held in dismissing p l a i n t i f f ' s pe t i t i on . 6

Third , p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel s t a t ed t ha t th e c o u r t ' s dec i s ion

grant ing absolute immunity to Sanders and Beck was "not

unexpected" given th e Howell dec is ion . (Doc. 34 a t 16) The

cour t i n t e rp r e t s t h i s sta tement as a concess ion t h a t counsel

knew f u l l wel l , once Howell was decided, t ha t th e claims he was

asse r t ing on h is c l i e n t ' s behal f aga ins t Sanders and Beck in

t h i s mat te r were withou t meri t .

This chronology of even ts demonstrates t ha t p l a i n t i f f ' s

counsel knowingly pursued f r ivolous claims aga ins t these two

defendants long a f t e r he knew the claims to be such, thereby

caus ing defendan ts to i ncur add i t iona l l i t i g a t i o n cos t s . This

6See In re Steven Scot t , Cov. Action No. 10-mc-038-DLB-JGW, Doc.

2.

11



i s not simply negl igence; it demonst ra tes an i n t e n t i o n a l and

vexat ious abuse o f the j ud i c i a l process , exac t ly what § 1927

means to guard ag a in s t . See Royal Oak, 316 F. App'x a t 487.

P l a i n t i f f ' s response to defendan t s ' motion fo r cos t s

perpe tua tes what appears to the cour t to be a de l ibe ra te

dis regard fo r " the ob l iga t ions owed by a member of the bar to

the cour t . " Id . a t 487. P la in t i f f ' s b r i e f s t a t e s , on i t s f i r s t

page and throughout , wi thout ambiguity, t h a t th e cour t

determined during th e o ra l arguments t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel

had not v io l a t ed Rule 11 in these proceed ings . (Doc. 39 a t 1)

The cour t i s a t a lo s s to i n f e r any reasonable explana t ion for

t h i s r ep resen ta t ion , given t h a t th e cour t : (a ) made no such

f inding, and (b ) in fac t , s t rong ly implied to th e cont ra ry .

Such a b l a t a n t misrepresenta t ion of the record compounds the

vexat ious conduct which led to the i n s t a n t motion.

P l a i n t i f f ' s counse l also a t tached to h is oppos i t ion an

a f f ida v i t conta in ing se r ious unsupported accusa t ions aga ins t

o ther members of the Kentucky b a r and j ud ic i a ry which a re

i r r e l e v a n t to th e presen t mat te r .

Fina l ly , perhaps most di s tu rb ing i s counse l ' s at tachment to

h is b r i e f o f a copy of a l e t t e r he apparent ly sen t to a

profe s sor a t the Salmon P. Chase Law School. (Doc. 39-1) The

pub l ica t ion of such a scur r i lous l e t t e r through th e channels of

12



t h i s l awsui t , where i r r e l e v a n t to any i s sue before the cour t , i s

so fa r removed from counse l ' s ro le as an advocate fo r t h i s

p l a i n t i f f t ha t it underscores the c our t ' s conclusion t h a t

counsel has knowingly and vexa t ious ly mul t ip l i ed these

proceed ings .

Aggravat ing these ac t ions i s the fac t t h a t counsel appears

to have been using the processes of the United S ta t e s D is t r i c t

Cour t to pursue an invid ious persona l vende t ta . In fu r therance

of t h i s vende t ta , he appears to have been using proceedings in

t h i s cour t to she l t e r l ibe lous sta tements fo r which, were they

n o t made in th e course o f j ud i c i a l proceed ings , he could be

sued. Indeed, t he cour t f inds the response even more appa l l ing

than the f r ivo lous f i l i n g s which preceded it.

Therefore , having reviewed t h i s mat te r , and being

o therwise su f f i c i en t l y adv ised ,

IT IS ORDERED t ha t : (1 ) The motion fo r recovery of cos ts

and fees by defendan ts Rob Sanders and Leanne Beck aga ins t Eric

C. Deters (Doc. 36) be, and i s hereby, GRANTED; and (2) Within

th i r ty (30) days o f entry o f th i s order , Sanders and Beck sh a l l

f i l e an i t emiza t ion , supported by an a f f i d a v i t of counsel , of

th e cos t s , expenses , and a t to rneys ' fees reasonably incurred in

defense of t h i s case a f t e r June 17, 2010.

13



This 11th day of Apr i l , 2011.

WILLIAM 0 . BERTELSMAN, JUDGE

14

scott v. sanders. april 22, 2011 order

Documents