Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02816/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02816-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2816

___________

Oscar Stilley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

James Marschewski, in his official *

capacity as Sebastian County Circuit * [UNPUBLISHED]

Judge and in his individual capacity; *

James M. “Mitch” Llewellyn, Jr.; *

Benny Gooden; Fort Smith Public *

School District; Jeannie Cole, Rick *

Hittner, Ann Dawson, Barbara *

Hathcock, Wyman Wade, Yvonne *

Keaton-Martin, each in their official *

capacity as members of the Forth Smith *

School Board and in their individual *

capacities; University of Arkansas at *

Fort Smith; Robert Brown, Tom Glaze, *

Donald L. Corbin, Annabelle Clinton *

Imber, Jim Hannah, Ray Thornton, each *

in their individual capacity and in their *

official capacity as a justice of the *

Arkansas Supreme Court, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 25, 2006

Filed: May 26, 2006

___________

Appellate Case: 05-2816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049362
1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation in the Western District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Attorney Oscar Stilley appeals the district court’s1

 imposition of sanctions

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We find no abuse of discretion in the

imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,

405 (1990). We are troubled by Stilley’s mischaracterization of the record as to the

applicability of Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision and Rule 11(c)(1)(B). We reject

Stilley’s argument that the limitations the district court imposed on his practice

constitute attorney discipline, as opposed to Rule 11 sanctions. See Stilley v. James,

48 Fed. Appx. 595, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam) (finding no abuse

of discretion in applying appropriately fashioned Rule 11 sanctions enjoining Stilley

from filing future cases involving issues that had been litigated or raised in three

lawsuits and two appeals; court acted appropriately by helping stop Stilley’s pursuit

of fruitless litigation). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049362