FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 09 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 02 71 -LC-M D EUGENE SMITH, SHAMEKA BROOKS, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us REGINALD BRUSTER, In di vi du al Cap aci ty, ROBERT QUINATA, GENE SALT ER, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff s Eu ge ne Sm it h a ndSh am ek a Bro ok s ap pe al pro se the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng th ei r ci vi l ri gh ts act io n fi le d p ur su an t t o 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d s ta te law. Aft er re vi ew, we di sm is s i n p artan d a ffi rm inpa rt. 1 I. BACKG ROUND FACTS Sm it h a ndhi s s is te r Bro ok s fi le d t hi s ac ti on all eg in g t ha t the de fen da nt s, th ree l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers , vi ol at edth ei r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s dur in g t he ex ecu ti on of asea rch warran t an d t he sei zure o f so m e o f th e p la in ti ffs ’ pr op erty . Afte r th e d efen da nt s fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s, the pl ai nt iff s t wice tri edto fil e a res po ns e th atdi d n otco nt ai n s ig na tu res forbo th pl ai nt iff s. Each ti m e, a m ag is tra te jud ge returne d the pl ead in g, ad vi se d t he pl ai nt iff s o f th e d efi ci en cy un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 1, an d i ns tru ct edth e p la in ti ffs to fil e a pl ead in g wi th each pl ai nt iff’s si gn atur e. The c ou rt a ccep te d fo r fi li ng th e pl ai nt iff s’ th irdres po ns e, pu rp orte dl y si gn edby bot h S m it h a ndBro ok s. Afte r rev ie win g t he fil e, ho wev er, the m ag is tra te jud ge su a sp on te is su edan or de r qu es ti on in g t he au th en ti ci ty of Bro ok s’s s ig na ture o n s ev eral pl ead in gs , in cl ud in g t he ori gi na l an d a m en de d c om pl ai nt s, Br oo ks ’s m ot io n t o p ro ceedin The plaintiffs a lso challeng e the district cour t’s order denying the m leave to a

ppeal in 1 forma pa uperis. We dismiss the appe al of this non-final or der f or lac k of appe llate jurisdiction. See Gomez v. United States, 245 F .2d 346, 347 (5th Cir. 1957). Alternatively , construingthis aspec t of the plaintiffs’ a

ppeal a s a re quest to this C ourt to proce ed in forma pauperis, the reque st is denied as moot bec ause the filing f ee a lrea dy has bee n paid. 2fo rm a p aupe ris an d t he pl ai nt iff s’ (th ird ) res po ns e to th e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o di sm is s. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge di rect edBro ok s t o s ub m ita no ta riz edno ti ce t o t he co urt s ta ti ng he r in te nt io ns in pa rti ci pa ti ng inth e li ti ga ti on an d e xp la in in g wh y pl ead in gs ha d b een“ subm it te d i n h er n am e wit h wh at[were] cle arl y va st ly di ffer en t s ig na tures .” The m ag is tra te jud ge advi se d t he pl ai nt iff s t ha t fo rg ery of co urt d oc um en ts was aser io us m at te r, rem in de d t he m th atRu le 11 requi redeach un rep res en te d p arty

to si gn pape rs fil edwith t he co urt an d warne d tha t i f he fou nd th atSm it h h adfor ge d B ro ok s’s s ig na tu re wi th ou t h er kno wled ge , th e m ag is tra te jud ge wou ldreco m

m en d s an ct io ns up to di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce. Bro ok s s ub m it te d ano ta riz edno ti ce d ecl ari ng th atsh e was “ aware of [ th e] pl ead in gs in qu es ti on ” in th e § 19 83 cas e an d t ha t “ [a]s far as t he si gn atur e ap pe ari ng to be di ffer en t I c anreca ll on sev eral oc cas io ns wher e I h adto si gn an d return d oc um en ts in th is cas e . . . . As faras I kn ow t he re h as no t b eenan y for ge ry of an ot he r in di vi du al on m

y be ha lf.” Bro ok s s ig ne d t he no ti ce, b utdi d n otswea r th atth e st at em en ts were tru e o r m ad e u nd er p en al ty of pe rjury. The m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on (R&R ) reco m m en di ng th atth e p la in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai ntbe di sm is se d wi th ou t p reju di ce. The R&R fou ndth at : (1 ) Bro ok s’s s ig na tu re o n t he ori gi na l co m pl ai nt , cert ai n do cu m en ts rel at in g t o s erv ic e an d t he res po ns e to th e d efen dant s’ m ot io n t o 3di sm is s wer e fo rg eri es ; an d (2 ) th atBro ok s’s s ig na tu re was for ge d wi th ou t h er

kn owl ed ge . The m ag is tra te jud ge de cl in edto ho ldSm it h re sp on si bl e, ho wev er, be cau se Bro ok s’s n ot ic e was un swo rn . The R& R co nc lu de d t ha t ci vi l, b utno t cri m in al , san ct io ns were warr an te d a ndreco m m en de d d is m is si ng th e co m pl ai nt witho utpre

jud ic e. Sm it h a ndBro ok s o bjec te d t o t he R&R, a rg ui ng th atth ey ha d “ co rrec te d a ll de fic ie nc ie s.” Th ey

di d n ot , ho wev er, d is pu te th atth e p le ad in gs inqu es ti on fal se ly bor e Bro ok s’s s ig na tu re o r arg ue th ata di sm is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce was to o se ve re a s an ct io n. The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he R&R a nddi sm is se d the pl ai nt iff s’ com pl ai nt witho utpre

jud ic e “ du e to pl ai nt iff

s’ subm is si onof d oc um en ts be ari ng fal si fie d si gn atur es to th e co urt.” Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he pl ai nt iff s’ subs eque nt m ot io ns forreco ns id erat io n. II . DISCUSSI ON Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 1 re qu ire s an un rep res en te d p arty to pe rs on al ly sig n “ [e]very

pl ead in g, wri tt enm ot io n, an d o th er p ap er” f il edwith t he co urt. Fed . R. Civ . P. 11 (a). In so do in g, the si gn in g p arty expr es se s h is or h er be li ef tha t the do cu m en t i s n otbe in g p res en te d fo r anim pr op er p ur

po se s. Fed . R. Ci v. P. 1 1( b) (1 ). Ru le 11 san ct io ns are p ro pe r whe n, am on g o th er thi ng s, a p arty 4fil es a pl ead in g i n b adfai th or f oranim pr op er p ur

po se . W or ld wid e Pri m at e, In c. v. M cGrea l, 8 7 F .3d12 52 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Inad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay su a sp on te di sm is s anact io n p ur su an t t o Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 4 1( b) if t he pl ai nt iff fai ls to co m

pl y with c ou rt ru le s o r a co urt o rd er. See Fed . R. Civ . P. 41 (b ); B et ty K Agen ci es , Ltd . v. M/ V Mo na da , 43 2 F .3d13 33 , 13 37 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). The d is tri ctco urt al so ha s in he ren t au th or it y

to san ct io n p art ie s fo r “ vi ol at io ns of p ro cedur al rul es or c ou rt or de rs ,” up to an d i nc lu di ng di sm is sa ls with p reju di ce. Don al ds on v. Cl ark , 81 9 F.2 d 1 55 1, 1 55 7 n .6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) ; s ee al so Bet ty K Agen ci es , 43 2 F .3dat 13 37 . Dis m is sa l wi thpre

jud ic e is a sa nc ti on of l as t re so rt, a ndon ly pro pe r if th e di st ric t co urt fi nd s “ a cl ear r eco rdof . . . wil lfu l co nduc t an d tha t l es se r sa nc ti on s are i na de qu at e to co rrec t s uc h c on du ct .” Zocaras v. Ca st ro , 46 5 F .3d47 9, 4 83 -8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In co nt ras t, d is m is sa l wi th ou t pr ejud ic e g en eral ly doe s n otco ns ti tu te anab us e o f di sc ret io n, ev enfora si ng le , rel at iv el y m in orpro cedur al vi ol at io n, b ecau se th e aff ect edpa rty m ay

re-fi le hi s o r he r act io n. Se e, e.g ., Dy

ne s v . Arm

y Air Fo rce Ex ch . Serv ., 72 0 F .2d14 95 , 14 99

5(1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) (co nc lu di ng di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng

co m pl ai ntwitho utpre

jud ic e fo r fai lure t o fi le co urt-o rd eredbri ef). 2 Here, the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l wi th ou t p reju di ce was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Sm ith h adfor ge d B ro ok s’s s ig na tu re o n se ve ral do cu m en ts fil edwith t he co urt. The pl ai nt iff s d o n otch al le ng e th is factua l fin di ng on ap pe al . Fil in g fo rg edpl ead in gs with t he co urt co ns ti tu te s p res en ti ng a pl ead in g fo r anim

pr op er p ur

po se an d i n b adfai th , invi ol at io n o f Ru le 11 (b ). Mo reo ve r, Bro ok s an d S m ith d idno t o ffer an y ex pl an at io n fo r th e fo rg ed si gn atur es or t ry

to subm itsubs ti tu te do cu m en ts co nt ai ni ng Bro ok s’s tru e si gn atur e. Befo re t ak in g a ct io n, the di stric t co urt ad vi se d t he pl ai nt iff s t ha t i t su sp ect edBro ok s’s s ig na ture o n s ev eral fil in gs was n otauth en ti c an d p ro vi de d Bro ok s wi th anop po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n t he di sc rep an cy . Bro ok s, i n a n uns worn res po ns e, di d n otde ny the qu es ti on edsi gn atur es were fa ls e. In st ead , sh e m erel y in di cat edsh e was ge ne ral ly aware of th e ci vi l ac ti on , att es te d t o s ig ni ng so m e un sp eci fie d d oc um en ts an d s ta te d t ha t, as far as sh e kne w, no on e h adfor ge d h er si gn atur e. Und er the cir cu m st an ces , itwas wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n t o

We reviewfor a

n abuse of

discretion a district c ourt’s orde r dismissing an a ction whether 2 under its inhere nt authority or pursua nt to Rul e 11 or 41(b). Ande rson v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 353 F.3d 912, 915 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 11); Gratton v. Great Am. Comm c’ns, 178 F .3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999) (Rule 41(b) ); Dy nes, 720 F .2d 1499 (inhere nt authority). 6di sm is s t he pl ai nt iff s’ § 1 98 3 a ct io n wi th ou t p reju di ce ei th er u nd er Ru le s 1 1 a nd 41 (b ) or un de r it s i nh eren t au th or it y . DISMI SSED I N PART, AF FIRMED I N PART.

7