Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00401/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00401-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORLANDO BETHEL, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 04-0401-WS-C

 )

TOWN OF LOXLEY, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This closed file comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ pro se Motion to Compel Filing of

“Answer” Dated November 6, 2004 (doc. 40). The Court understands that plaintiffs have repeatedly

contacted the Clerk’s Office regarding the status of their Motion. Such inquiries are puzzling, given that

the “Answer” is a legal nullity. After all, plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice by this

Court in August 2004, and the Eleventh Circuit dismissed plaintiffs’ ensuing appeal for lack of

jurisdiction in February 2005. The “Answer” has no bearing on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims or on any

appellate proceedings they might wish to pursue. Simply put, this lawsuit has concluded, and the Court

is aware of no constructive reason why plaintiffs might continue to press this issue. Nonetheless, in the

interest of bringing much-needed closure to this moribund action, the Court will address their concerns.

Plaintiffs’ present motion concerns a document captioned “Answer and Religious Rebuke to the

Wicked Judge William Steele’s and the Wicked Matistrate [sic] Cassidy’s [sic] ‘Order’” that plaintiffs

transmitted to the Clerk’s Office in November 2004. Although styled an “Answer,” this pleading is

nothing more than four pages of vitriolic insults designed to calumniate and disparage this Court. On its

face, the document “DIS-respectfully” reproached the undersigned; characterized him as “wicked,”

“corrupt,” and a “lying bastard”; described this District Court as a “KANGAROO so called federal

court”; and branded the order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims as “trash.” Given that this Court had

previously dismissed plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and denied their request for reconsideration,

Case 1:04-cv-00401-WS-C Document 41 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 4
-2-

plaintiffs’ “Answer” could serve no conceivable legitimate purpose in this litigation, nor did it purport to

serve any purpose other than to denigrate this tribunal.

Plaintiffs now demand that their vituperative pleading be accepted for filing and express outrage

at the alleged “judicial tyranny,” “obstruction of justice,” and “tampering with official Court documents”

that they contend have conspired to prevent it from being filed heretofore. (Motion, at 3.) As a legal

basis for their Motion, plaintiffs rely on Rule 5(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., which provides in relevant part that

“The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is

not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices.” Id.

Plaintiffs apparently labor under the misconception that Rule 5(e) confers upon them an

absolute, unfettered right to file anything they want in federal court. It does not. Rule 5(e) does not

impose on the Clerk’s Office an ironclad obligation to accept all documents presented for filing; rather,

it simply says that the Clerk cannot reject such a submission “solely because it is not presented in

proper form.” Id. The non-acceptance of plaintiffs’ “Answer” had nothing to do with its form. More

importantly, irrespective of the Clerk of Court’s responsibilities, this Court possesses the inherent

authority to prevent abusive filing practices such as that at issue here.

The law is clear that district courts possess an inherent power to sanction errant litigants before

them. See Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir.

2002) (“Courts have the inherent authority to control the proceedings before them, which includes the

authority to impose "reasonable and appropriate" sanctions.”); F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. v.

Emerald River Development, Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (“All federal courts are

vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms effectively and to

ensure obedience to their orders.”). Indeed, “[c]ourts of justice are universally acknowledged to be

vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence,

and submission to their lawful mandates.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct.

2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). Pursuant to this authority,

federal courts are empowered to impose a wide range of sanctions for offensive, contumacious, or

disrespectful conduct. See F.J. Hanshaw, 244 F.3d at 1136 (“As a function of this power, courts can

Case 1:04-cv-00401-WS-C Document 41 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 4
-3-

dismiss cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award attorney's fees and assess fines.”); In re Prewitt,

84 Fed.Appx. 397, 398, 2003 WL 22965563 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2003) (district court had inherent

power to ban attorney from third floor of federal courthouse in Greenville, Mississippi); LaFleur v.

Teen Help, 342 F.3d 1145, 1149 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Among these inherent powers is the ability to

select an appropriate sanction.”); Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 62 F.3d

1469, 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (pursuant to inherent power, courts may protect institutional integrity

“with contempt citations, fines, awards of attorneys' fees, and such other orders and sanctions as they

find necessary, including even dismissals and default judgments”). “[T]he choice of an appropriate

sanction must be handled on a case-by-case basis.” Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.

2003); see also In re Prewitt, 280 F. Supp.2d 548, 562 (N.D. Miss. 2003) (“The court possesses

the discretion to tailor sanctions to the particular facts of the case.”).

Upon review of plaintiffs’ obviously malicious and pejorative submission back in November

2004, the Court concluded that its sole function was to hurl invective at this tribunal, and that sanctions

were warranted. In reliance on its inherent powers, and in lieu of any more severe sanction (including

contempt) that it could reasonably have imposed in these circumstances, the Court directed the Clerk’s

Office not to accept the “Answer” for filing. The Court stands by that determination today. Plaintiffs,

whether pro se or not, are not entitled to utilize the Clerk’s Office as a launchpad for gratuitous ad

hominem attacks such as those set forth within their “Answer.” Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the filing

of their “Answer and Religious Rebuke” in this long-closed action is therefore denied.

In so ruling, the Court recognizes that plaintiffs fervently disagree with the outcome of the

undersigned’s previous decisions in this matter. That is their prerogative. However, such dissidence

does not confer upon plaintiffs carte blanche to insult, vilify and castigate this Court as they have done

in their “Answer and Religious Rebuke.” See generally Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 9, 72

S.Ct. 451, 455 (1952) (“But if the ruling is adverse, it is not counsel's right to resist it or to insult the

judge--his right is only respectfully to preserve his point for appeal.”). Plaintiffs, like every other litigant

in federal court, must observe proper decorum and respect, irrespective of whether they concur with

this Court’s decisions or not. The Court expects plaintiffs to conduct themselves in recognition of these

Case 1:04-cv-00401-WS-C Document 41 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 4
-4-

principles should they have occasion to appear before the undersigned again.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00401-WS-C Document 41 Filed 04/19/05 Page 4 of 4