FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APR 4, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11069 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 8 1 2 - C V - J - 9 9 MMH C H R I S T O P H E R M I L L E R , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M O R R I S C O M M U N I C A T I O N S C O M P A N Y L L C , d .b .a . F lo r id a T im e s - U n io n , D ef endant -C ou nt er C la im a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 4, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A R N E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

S um m a r y j udgm e ntw a s e nt e r e d f orM or r i s C om m uni c a t i ons C om pa ny on C h r is to p h e rM ille r ’s A m e r ic a n s w ith D is a b ilitie s A c t c la im o n J u ly 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . M i l l er , i n res po nse, fi l ed m ot i on s w i th t he di stri ctcourtfor i m m edi at e e nt ry of a defa ul tj ud gm entand u nd erR ul e 60(b) for re l i ef fr om j ud gm ent . T he di stri ctcourt deni ed bo th m ot i on s, st at i ng as t o t he l att eron e thati t“ ha[d] no j uri sdi ct i on t o h ea r f u r th e rm o tio n s in th is c a s e o rru le o n th e irm e r its .” ( R 1 3 :2 7 5 :4 .) D uri ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on si dera t i on of t ho se m ot i on s, M i l l erse ntem a i l s a nd f

a c s i m i l e s di r e c t l y t o the c our t . T he di s tr i c tc our ton thr e e oc c a s i ons ordered M i l l ert o st op . In t he fi rs torder, dat ed Jul y 25, 20 05 , the courtw rot e that

“ [i ] ti s i m prop erfor a l i t i gantt o corres po nd di re ct l y w i th a Judg e pre si di ng ov er hi s orhe rc a s e vi a t e l e phone , l e t t e rore m a i l , ” a nd i ns truc t e d M i l l e rtha ta ny c o m m u n ic a tio n a b o u t a n a c tio n h e w a n te d th e c o u r t to ta k e s h o u ld b e f ile d d ir e c tly w i th t he cl er k’ s off

i ce . In t he se cond order, dat ed O ct ob er14 , 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtno t ed t hat M ille rh a d c o n tin u e d to s e n d e - m a il m e s s a g e s d ir e c tly to th e c o u r t r e q u e s tin g th a t it f i l e a t t a c hm e nt s f

orhi m e l e c tr oni c a l l y . T he di s tr i c tc our tw a r ne d M i l l e rtha ti f he di d nots t op c om m uni c a t i ng di r e c t l y w i th the c our the w oul d be he l d i n c ont e m pt o f co u rtan d su b

j ect ed t o san ct i o n s. In t he t hi rd order, dat ed N ov em ber 28, 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned3

tha t , a f t e ri t s pr e c e di ng or de r , M i l l e rha d e - m a i l e d s e ve r a l m or e m e s s a ge s t o the c o u r t, to th e c o u r tr o o m d e p u ty , to v a r io u s e m p lo y e e s o f th e c le r k ’s o f

f ic e a n d to ever y j ud ge i n t he M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da. In addi t i on t o t ho se e- m ai l s, M i l l er ha d a l s o f

a xe d c opi e s of

the c om m uni c a t i ons t o s om e of the j udge s i n the J a c ks onvi l l e , F l or i da c our thous e . T he di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d M i l l e rt o s t op s e ndi ng e- m ai l s a nd fa xes t o t he j ud ges a nd em pl oyee s of the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da. It w a r ne d hi m tha ta ny f

ur the ri m pr ope rc om m uni c a t i ons w oul d r e s ul ti n a $10, 000 c iv il c o n te m p t f

in e f o re a c h r e c ip ie n t o f

e a c h d o c u m e n t. D e s p ite th a t w a r n in g , M ille rd id n o t s to p . H e c o n tin u e d to s e n d e - m a il m e s s a ge s . A s a r e s ul t , the di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d M i l l e rt o s how c a us e w hy he s houl d notbe he l d i n c ont e m ptof c our ta nd s a nc t i one d $70, 000 f orvi ol a t i ng the no- e m a i l - or - f

a x or de r . W he n M i l l e rdi d nots how c a us e ore ve n s how up a tthe show cause hea ri ng , the di stri ctcourtordere d t hathe be hel d i n con t em ptand t hat j ud gm entbe ent er ed agai nsthi m for $70 , 00 0. T hatorder w as i ss ued o n N ov em ber 30, 2005. E v e n a f te rth a t o r d e rM ille rc o n tin u e d to s e n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m o r e e - m a ils . I n r e s pons e , the c our ta m e nde d the j udgm e nttha tw a s ba s e d on i t s N ove m be r30, 2005 or de rs o tha tM i l l e rw oul d ha ve t o pa y $180, 000 w i thi n thi r ty da y s orbe a r r e s t e d.Miller also seeks to a ppeal the district c ourt’s ac tual summary judgme nt for Morris and 1 the denial of

his moti on for de fault judgment. We have alrea dy dismiss ed for

lack of jurisdiction thepa rt of Mil le r’ s n oti c e of

a pp e a l pert a ini ngto t

hesumma

ry judgme nt a

nd thede fa ult judgme nt motion denial becausethe notice of appeal was filed morethan thirty days after

the entry of the order and judgment. Miller v. Morris Commc’ns Co., No. 06-11069, at 2 (11th Cir. Mar. 16, 2006) . 4 M i l l e rthe n f

i l e d tw o m ot i ons f

orr e l i e f f r om j udgm e nt : one f

orr e l i e f f r om the s um m a r y j udgm e nton hi s A D A c l a i m , a nd the othe rf orr e l i e f f r om the $ 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 s a n c tio n s ju d g m e n t. A lm o s t u n b e lie v a b ly , h e a ls o s e n t m o r e e - m a ils to the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ha m be r s . A s a r e s ul t , the di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d tha tj udgm e nt be e nt e r e d a ga i ns tM i l l e rf ora n a ddi t i ona l $20, 000, br i ngi ng the t ot a l a m ountof th e s a n c tio n s a g a in s t h im to $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 . A f te ra h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in a s in g le or de r , da t e d F e brua r y 3, 2006, de ni e d both of M i l l e r ’ s m ot i ons f

orr e l i e f f r om j ud gm ent . M i l l erappeal s thatorder. 1 I. M i l l e rc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n i t s F e brua r y 3, 2006 or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orr e l i e f f r om s um m a r y j udgm e ntbe c a us e : ( 1) the c our tr e f us e d t o c ons i de re vi de nc e tha tM or r i s c om m i t t e d f r a ud by de s tr oy i ng re l evantevi dence and conceal i ng the destruct i on fr om the court ; and (2) t he court r e f us e d t o he a ra r gum e nt s i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on a tthe he a r i ng. M i l l e ri s w r ong o n b o th acco u n t s.

“ [ T ] he l a w i s c l e a rtha tR ul e 60( b) m a y notbe us e d t o c ha l l e nge m i s t a ke s of5

l aw w hi ch coul d h ave been ra i se d o n d i re ctappeal . ” A m . B ankers Ins. C o. of F l a. v. N . W . N a t ’ l I ns . C o. , 198 F . 3d 1332, 1338 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . T ha ti s , a m ot i on f or r e l i e f m a y notbe us e d by the l os i ng pa r ty i n the di s tr i c tc our tt o c i r c um ve ntthe j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e nttha the a ppe a l the m e r i t s of the unde r l y i ng j udgm e nt w i thi n t hi rty day s. S ee B urnsi de v. E . A i rl i nes, Inc. , 51 9 F . 2d 11 27 , 11 28 (5t h C i r. 1 9 7 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “T h e w e ll- r e c o g n iz e d ru le , h o w e v e r , a n d th a t w h ic h c o m p o r ts w i th the t i m e l i m i ti m pos e d by [ F e de r a l ] R ul e s [ of A ppe l l a t e P r oc e dur e ] 4( a ) a nd 3( a ) , pr e c l ude s the us e of a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on a s a s ubs t i tut e f ora pr ope ra nd t i m el y app ea l . ”) . H er e, the di sc ov er y i ss ues w er e r ai se d b y M i l l ernu m er ou s t i m es bo th b ef ore a n d d u r in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n . M i l l e rc oul d ha ve f

i l e d a F e de r a l R ul e of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e 56( f

) m ot i on t o e xt e nd the t i m e f

ordi s c ove r y , orm ove d f ordi s c ove r y s a nc t i ons a ga i ns tM or r i s ( i nc l udi ng a d efau l tj u d g m en t ), an d th en ap p eal ed th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n as t o th ese m ot i ons . B uthe c hos e nott o. H e c a nnotnow , f i ve m onths l a t e r , us e a R ul e 60 m ot i on t o m a ke a n e nd run a r ound the j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e nttha the a ppe a l the m e r its o f th e ju d g m e n t w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f its e n tr y . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng that M i l l erfa i l ed t o d em on stra t e a ny grou nd un der R ul e 60(b) ent i t l i ng hi m t o rel i efIn h is b ri e f, Mil le r a rgue s th at hesh ou ld also bere lie ve d f ro m a dditi on a l ju dgme nts 2 i mp o s i n gs an c t i o n s a

b o v e an d b e yo n d $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , wh i c hj u d gm e nt s w e r e e nt e r e d o nF eb r u ar y 7 and 9, 2006—af

ter the district c ourt had de nied his Rule 60 motion—and on Febr uary 10, 13, and 14, and Ma

rch 23 a nd 24, 2006 —afte r Miller had f iled his notice of appe al from the denial 6 fr om the sum m ar y j ud gm entent er ed i n favor of M orri s. A nd beca use M i l l erfa i l ed to s u g g e s t a n y a r g u a b ly v a lid g r o u n d f o rr e lie f , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi m a he a r i ng on the m ot i on. S e e C a no v. B a ke r , 435 F . 3d 1 3 3 7 , 1 3 4 2

– 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng C a no’ s r e que s tf ora n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng a nd t o m a ke spec i fi c f ac tual fi nd i ng s of f

ac ton the evi dence s he subm i t t ed i n sup po rtof her R ul e 60(b) m ot i on . . . . B ec ause the di stri ctcourt ’ s und er l yi ng deci si on w as base d o n i t s l a c k o f

a u th o r i ty t o g r a n tth e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d b y C a n o a s a m a t t e ro f l a w, there w ou l d h ave been no reas on t o h ol d an evi dent i ar y hea ri ng . ”) . II. A s t o M i l l e r ’ s a ppe a l f

r om the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

orr e l i e f f r om the c ont e m ptj udgm e nt s s a nc t i oni ng hi m $200, 000, he c ont e nds tha t : ( 1) the j ud gm ent s a re vo i d b ec ause the di stri ctcourtdi d n othave j uri sdi ct i on t o ent er them ; (2) they a re i m prop erbeca use the courtkn ew thathe coul d n otpay that m uc h; a nd ( 3) i tw a s ne c e s s a r y f orhi m t o s e nd the e - m a i l s a nd f a xe s be c a us e the co u rt ’ s ru l es p rev en t ed h i m fro m fi l i n g h i s p ap ers el ect ro n i cal l y w i th o u tfi rst obt a i ni ng a uthor i z a t i on. 2of his Rule 60(b) motion. As to all the post-Februar y 3, 2006 judgme nts, Mill er’ s notice of appeal only

sought reviewof the F ebrua ry 3, 2006 order

denying his Rule 60 motions; he did not seek review of

any of the other

sanctions judgments. See Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Que .) Import, Inc., 362 F .3d 775, 785 (11th Cir. 2004) (“ Where a notice of a

ppeal spe cifies a

particula r judgme nt or ruling , we infer that others a re not pa rt of the a ppeal.” ). More over, a s to the sanctions judgments entere d on Februar y 10, 13, and 14 and Ma

rch 23 a nd 24, 2006, all of which cameafte r the noticeof appe al was f iled, the Court does not havejurisdiction to review them. See B og le v. Ora

ng e County

Bd. of County Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) ( “the notice of a

ppeal in this casedoes not confer jurisdiction over a sanctions orde r that wa s entere d almost two months after the noticeof appe al was f iled”). 7 M i l l er ’ s f

i rs tar gu m enti s bas ed on the fol l ow i ng st at em enti n t he di stri ct c o u r t’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is f ir s t R u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n : “A s P la in tif f h a s e x h a u s te d a ll av en u es fo r rel i ef, th e C o u rth as n o j u ri sd i ct i o n t o h ear fu rt h er m o t i o n s i n th i s case or rul e on t hei r m er i t s. ” ( R 13 : 27 5: 4. ) M i l l erar gu es thatsi nce the di stri ctcourt sa i d i tdi d n othave j uri sdi ct i on t o h ea r a ny further m ot i on s, i tfol l ow s thatthe court d i d n o th av e j u ri sd i ct i o n t o i ssu e co n t em p to rd ers an d san ct i o n s. M i l l erre ads t oo m uch i nt o t he di stri ctcourt ’ s s t at em ent . T he di stri ctcourt w a s s im p ly s ta tin g its o p in io n a b o u t ju r is d ic tio n to e n te rf u r th e ro r d e r s d ir e c tly r e la tin g to th e m e r its o f th e c a s e . T h e c o u r t d id s till h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to e n te r ta in Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) mo t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o th e j u d g me n t s i th a d e n t e r e d . Se e Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 60( b) . A nd, m or e i m por t a nt l y , the c our ts t i l l ha d j ur i s di c t i on t o pr ot e c ti t s e l f a nd o th e rj u d i c i a l o f

f i c e r s a n d p e r s o n n e l f

r o m i mp r o p e rc o mmu n i c a t i o n s f r o m a di s grunt l e d l i t i ga nt . S e e M a r t i n v. A ut om obi l i L a m bor ghi ni E xc l us i ve , I nc . , 307 F . 3d 1332, 1335 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( “ C our t s ha ve the i nhe r e nta uthor i ty t o c ontr ol8

th e p r o c e e d in g s b e f

o r e th e m , w h ic h in c lu d e s th e a u th o r ity to im p o s e ‘r e a s o n a b le and app ropri at e’ sa nct i on s. ”) . M i l l e r ’ s a r gum e nt s tha tthe c our ts houl d notha ve he l d hi m i n c ont e m ptf or c ont i nui ng t o s e nd the c om m uni c a t i ons a nd tha ti tkne w he c oul d notpa y the am o u n ti to rd ered are co n t en t i o n s th atg o t o th e m eri t s o f t h e san ct i o n s j u d g m en t s. T he y c oul d ha ve be e n r a i s e d i n a t i m e l y appe a l f r om thos e j udgm e nt s , butnone w as fi l ed. A R ul e 60(b) m ot i on ca nn otbe used t o ski rtthe stri ctthi rty- day j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e ntf orf i l i ng a not i c e of

a ppe a l . S e e A m . B a nke r s I ns . C o. of F l a. , 19 8 F . 3d at13 38 ; B urnsi de, 51 9 F . 2d at11 28 . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct c our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng M i l l e r ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on f orr e l i e f of the s a nc t i ons j udgm e nt s i s due t o be a f f i r m e d. AF F I R ME D.