Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL A. TOZZI et al., 

Defendants.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-CV-0148 OWW DLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 43).

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed with leave

to amend in open court on June 6, 2005. (The district court’s

reasoning set forth in a written memorandum opinion and order

filed June 22, 2000.) Now before the court for decision is

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11. Doc. 43, filed May 9, 2005. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Jensen and Hollenback

served legal paperwork pertaining to this case upon him at the

wrong address. Plaintiff’s address of record is:

Melvin Jones

P.O. Box 579392

Modesto, CA 95357

Certificates of service filed by Defendants Jensen and Hollenback

during the months of April and May 2005 bear the following,

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 65 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 This very issue was discussed in the June 22,

memorandum opinion and order. The district court concluded that,

despite the possibility of improper service, Plaintiff’s

complaint should be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a

claim but that Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend. Doc.

60 at 7.

2

slightly different, address for Plaintiff: 

Melvin Jones

P.O. Box 579393

Modesto, CA 95357

Plaintiff asserts that, as a result of the one digit error, he

did not received Defendants’ filings. See Doc. 44 at 2. 

Plaintiff argues that this error amounts to misconduct warranting

the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11. Plaintiff

specifically suggests that the Jensen and Hollenback each be

sanctioned $144,500 (a figure based in part upon Plaintiff’s

“earnings capacity”). 

Defendants explain in their opposition, filed June 21, 2005,

exactly seven (7) days prior to the hearing on this motion, that

the mailing errors were innocent mistakes made by a staff member. 

Plaintiff vigorously objects that the district court should not

even consider this argument, as Defendants opposition was due

fourteen (14) days before the hearing and was therefore filed

late. While Plaintiff’s procedural argument appears to have

merit, his Rule 11 motion is nevertheless baseless and must be

denied. 

Although Plaintiff appears to be correct in his assertion

that several documents were mailed to an incorrect address, the

appropriate remedy for such an oversight is normally an order

directing reservice of the affected documents.1 Rule 11

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 65 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

sanctions are only appropriate if the attorney took a particular

action “for an improper purpose such as unnecessary delay or

increasing the cost of litigation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 

The imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is entrusted to the sound

discretion of the district court. See G.C. and K.B. Investments,

inc., v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Nothing in the record suggests that Defendants Jensen and

Hollenback’s mailing practices were infected with any improper

purpose. 

Based on the excessive and unjustified burden placed on the

court by Plaintiff’s serial and meritless filings, it is

Plaintiff who more appropriately could be subject to Rule 11

sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is

DENIED.

Dated: June 29, 2005

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 65 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 3