IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND and )

THE LAW FIRM OF ROBERT HOLLAND, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) NO. 2:15-CV-207

)

CITY OF GARY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin (DE #141) dated August 30, 2016,

and the Objection to the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate

Judge Martin (DE #143), filed by Robert Holland (“Holland”) on

September 20, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the objection

is OVERRULED and the report and recommendation is ADOPTED. 

BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2016, this Court sanctioned Holland in the amount of

$500. (DE #129). Holland objected to the imposition of sanctions 

and also notified the Court that he was unable to pay the sanctions.

(DE ## 132, 133). This Court overruled the objection and referred the

notice of inability to pay to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin for

report and recommendation. (DE ## 134, 135). Holland then filed a
motion to reconsider the Court’s ruling on his objection to the

sanctions. (DE #136). That too was denied by this Court. (DE # 139).

Magistrate Judge Martin conducted a hearing to explore Holland’s

ability to pay sanctions. At that hearing, Holland testified that his

only income is Social Security Disability in the amount of $1,021 per

month. Holland has looked for work, but he claims that back issues

limit his options. He does not currently own any real property, but

he believes that three properties were unlawfully taken from him. He

still lives at one of those properties, and does not currently pay

rent, a mortgage, or property taxes. He does pay roughly $200 per

month for utilities. And, he owns the furnishing in the home. He

does not own a vehicle. On the date of the hearing, he had $20 in

cash and a total of $20.01 in two different checking accounts. 

Holland also testified that he is a plaintiff in at least six

different cases, five of which are related and three of which are on

appeal. As a result of the appeals, he needed to pay $1,515 in court

fees over the next sixty days. In addition, he will have significant

expenses related to preparing documents for those appeals. 

Following the hearing, Magistrate Judge Martin recommended that

this Court find that Holland has the ability to pay the $500 in

sanctions. The report and recommendation provides in part that:

After reviewing Plaintiff’s testimony, the Court

finds that he is not unable to pay the sanctions

as ordered. Plaintiff was specifically warned by

Judge Lozano, in capital letters, that the Court

would impose “Sanctions of $500 per filing” for

frivolous challenges to the Court’s order of

-2-
dismissal. Plaintiff did not heed this warning

and was sanctioned accordingly. While the Court

acknowledges that $500 is approximately half of

Plaintiff’s stated monthly income, the Court also

notes that Plaintiff has paid hundreds if not

thousands of dollars in filing fees to maintain

several causes of action in this Court and in

state court. This ability to pay significant

filing fees and hundreds of dollars in printing

costs refutes rather than supports Plaintiff’s

claim that he cannot pay the instant sanction. 

(DE #141 at 3). On September 20, 2016, Holland filed the instant

timely objection to the report and recommendation.1

 Defendants have

not filed a response. Accordingly, both the report and recommendation

and Holland’s objection are ripe for adjudication. 

DISCUSSION

When a party makes objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendations, “[t]he district court is required to conduct a de

novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendations to which objections have been filed.” Goffman v.

Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995). “[T]he court may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Holland’s objection sets forth the procedural history of the

sanctions at issue and some of the facts presented at the hearing held

1 The report and recommendation was sent to Holland via certified mail,

and the return receipt indicates he received the report and recommendation on

September 6, 2016.

-3-
before Magistrate Judge Martin. Holland then concludes that “[t]he

recommendation defies logic and the evidence presented under the

circumstances.” (DE #143 at 3). Holland has not taken issue with any

of the facts presented in the report and recommendation, just

Magistrate Judge Martin’s conclusion. 

The remainder of the objection presents yet another challenge to

this Court’s decision to impose the sanctions in the first place,

claiming the sanctions were without legal justification. This Court

has considered Holland’s argument that the sanctions were unfounded

on two prior occasions: Holland objected to the imposition of

sanctions and this Court overruled the objection (DE ## 132, 134). 

Holland then filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s ruling on his

objection and that too was denied by this Court. (DE ## 136, 139). 

This Court will not now entertain Holland’s third attempt to challenge

the validity of the initial decision to impose sanctions.2 

As for Holland’s argument directed to Magistrate Judge Martin’s

recommendation that this Court find he has the ability to pay the

sanctions imposed, Holland has offered little to support his position. 

Holland’s income is minimal, but his living expenses are also minimal. 

To the extent a move is in Holland’s near future, little is known

about his future living expenses. Holland claims that his expenses

are high, but he is referring to expenses related to his prolific

2 The Court notes, however, that it is exactly this kind of behavior -

repeatedly making the same arguments - that led to the sanctions at issue

here.

-4-
litigation, not living expenses.

On October 4, 2016, Holland was able to pay a $505 fee for an

appeal from a decision by this Court in Holland v. Feinberg, 2:13-CV491. In that case, Holland is appealing an order by this Court that

notes the following:

In this instant motion, Holland continues to set

forth the same legal arguments that have been

rejected by this Court again and again, and

affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. To raise and

re-raise arguments that have been rejected by the

Court is an abuse of the judicial process

warranting sanctions. This civil case has long

since been closed and this Court will not

consider any additional challenges to this

Court’s order dismissing the case.

See Id. at DE #152, pg. 2. Holland sought to proceed IFP in that

case, but this Court found that the appeal was not taken in good

faith. Holland nonetheless decided to proceed at his own expense.

This is not an isolated incident of Holland choosing to pay to pursue

appeals that are lacking in good faith. Holland has filed fifteen

separate appeals since 2009, including four appeals in 2016. Many of

these cases were cases where IFP was denied by the district court

because the appeal was deemed lacking in good faith and IFP was also

denied by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

It appears that Holland simply cannot take no for an answer. 

This has been a recurring theme in his numerous cases before this

Court. While persistence is admirable in some circumstances, in a

court of law, there comes a point where persistence becomes an abuse

of the judicial process. Holland has long since passed that point. 

-5-
If Holland chooses to spend his limited income pursuing appeals

in bad faith, he is entitled to do that (although he may ultimately

face additional sanctions). However, expenses resulting from that

choice do not render him unable to pay the sanctions in this case. 

Magistrate Judge Martin correctly considered Holland’s ability

to pay significant court fees and associated costs in recommending

that this Court find Holland has the ability to pay the instant

sanctions. Magistrate Judge Martin’s recommendation is not, as

Holland suggests, “clearly without logic.” A de novo review supports

a finding that Holland has the ability to pay the sanctions ordered

by this Court. 

This Court’s sanction order did not include a due date. There

is no demand that Holland come up with $500 today, tomorrow, or even

next month. He may make payments over time as he is able, but the

sanctions must be paid. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Objection to the Report and

Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin (DE #143) is OVERRULED

and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin

(DE #141) is ADOPTED. 

DATED: October 19, 2016 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

-6-