FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 25, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 12713 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 0 5 3 - C V- F T M- 3 3 - DN F J O H N PA BLO CA M PO S, P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee , v ersu s C IT Y O F N A P L E S , C o l l i er C o u n ty, D O N H U N T E R , S heri ff , D e f e n d a n ts , R Y A N T U T T , D ep u ty, D A V I D K A Y E , S g t., D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s.

________________________ 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

________________________ ( O c t ob e r 25, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H , an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J ohn P a bl o C a m pos , a pr i s one ri n the S t a t e of F l or i da pe na l s y s t e m , f i l e d a p ro se fed eral ci v i l ri g h t s co m p l ai n ti n th e d i stri ctco u rtag ai n sttw o C o l l i er C o u n ty de puty s he r i f

f s . P r i ort o tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n or de rgr a nt i ng d e f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f

o rs u mma r y j u d g me n ta n d d i s mi s s i n g th e c a s e . I n th e s a me o r d e r , h o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u a s p o n te s a n c tio n e d d e f

e n d a n ts a n d th e ir c ouns e l f orthe i r“ r e c a l c i tr a nta c t i ons , ” i n the c onduc tof the de f e ns e . A l though ack n o w l ed g i n g th atth e d efen se m o t i o n fo r su m m ary j u d g m en tw as fi l ed tw o d ays pri or t o the deadl i ne es t abl i shed by the court ’ s ow n schedul i ng order, the di stri ct courtchar ac t er i ze d i tas an “ el eventh h ou r” fi l i ng . T he di stri ctcourtthen s pe c ul a t e d tha tthi s “ l a c k of due di l i ge nc e ” m i ghtha ve be e n “ a i m e d a tge ne r a t i ng in c r e a s e d le g a l r e v e n u e s a t th e e x p e n s e o f ta x p a y e r s .” F in d in g d e f e n d a n ts

“ hand l i ng of thi s m att erw as un profes si on al , ” a nd an “ abuse of the j ud i ci al proces s, ” the di stri ctcourtaw ar ded $ 3, 78 6. 62 t o p l ai nt i ff’ s c ou rt -app oi nt ed c o u n s e l to o f

f s e t th e “c o s ts u n n e c e s s a r ily in c u r r e d b y [ th e m ] in p r o s e c u tin g th is ac t i on , ” a nd ordered the defendant s t o p ay w i thi n fi ve days . P l ai nt i ff w as ordered t o fi l e a m o t i o n fo r co n t em p to f co u rtsh o u l d d efen d an t s fai l t o t i m el y co m p l y. D ef endant s f i l ed a m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on of the sa nct i on s a w ar d. T hey c ont e nde d tha tthe c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

de l a y , unpr of

e s s i ona l c onduc t , a nd r e c a l c i tr a nc e w e r e nots uppor t e d by the r e c or d, butw e r e , i n f a c t , c ontr a di c t e d by the r e c or d. T he y not e d tha t , a s the pr e va i l i ng pa r t i e s , the y w e r e the one s dueTh ela ps eof thi s p e ri od

of tim ese e ms to b eattributa bleto nor mal de lays in

a pro s e 1 prisoner c ase, inc luding the disposition of the motion to procee d in f or mapa up e ris . 3 a tt o r n e y s ’ f

e e s u n d e rth e l a w. O ne da y l a t e r , pl a i nt i f

f’ s c ouns e l f

i l e d a m ot i on f

orc ont e m pt , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d, f

i ndi ng de f

e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on t o be

“ w i thoutl e ga l f

ounda t i on a nd f

ur the re vi de nc e of

D e f e nda nt s di l a t or y a nd c ont e m ptuous a tt i tude t ow a r d the C our ta nd the de f e ns e of thi s m a tt e r . ” T he di stri ctcourtal so char ac t er i ze d the defendant s’ sugg es t i on thatthey w er e e nt i t l ed to a tto r n e y s ’ f

e e s a s a r r o g a n t, a n d m a d e “in s tr o n g - a r m f a s h io n .” T he defendant s f

i l ed thi s app ea l . A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o speci fy unde rw ha tthe or y i ta w a r de d s a nc t i ons a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s , w e s ha l l r e ve r s e the a w a r d f or , unde ra ny the or y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe a w a r d w a s a n a bus e of the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sc re t i on . I. O n January 30 , 20 03 , John C am po s f i l ed a p ro se c om pl a i ntunde r42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, al l egi ng thatD eput y S heri ff s R ya n T ut tand D avi d K ay e use d e xc e s s i ve f

or c e i n a r r e s t i ng hi m i n J a nua r y of 2002. A l though he f

i l e d a m ot i on f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l, th e c o u r t d e n ie d it. S erv i ce o f p ro cess w as n o tp erfected u n t i l Ju l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 . In th ei r an sw ers, 1 fi l ed Ju l y 3 1 , T u ttan d K aye asserted that th ey w ere en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty, b u tal so th atC am p o s’ s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m s w ere b arred as a m att er o f l aw b ecau se4

C am po s w as conv i ct ed of re si st i ng arre stand agg ra vat ed bat t ery on a l aw e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e ri n c onne c t i on w i th the c om pl a i ne d- of - a r r e s t , c i t i ng H

ec k v . H um ph re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . H ec k ba r s c i vi l c l a i m s unde r§ 1983 f or e xc e s s i ve f

or c e w he r e r e c ove r y w oul d unde r m i ne pl a i nt i f f’ s c onvi c t i on f

or c r im in a lly r e s is tin g th e a r r e s t. A ppr oxi m a t e l y s i x m onths l a t e r , on J a nua r y 23, 2004, T utta nd K a y e f i l e d a m ot i on t o di s m i s s f

orf a i l ur e t o pr os e c ut e , a l l e gi ng tha tC a m pos ha d t a ke n no a c tio n in th e c a s e s in c e F e b ru a r y o f 2 0 0 3 , w h e n h e f

ile d a P r is o n e rC o n s e n t F o r m . C am po s f

ai l ed t o res po nd t o the m ot i on . O n F ebruary12 , 20 04 , the di stri ctcourt deni ed the m ot i on on the grou nd s thatC am po s w as “ no ti n v i ol at i on of any C ou rt ordered deadl i ne. ” O n F e brua r y 20, the c our te nt e r e d a s c he dul i ng or de r , w hi c h s e tthe de a dl i ne f ordi s c ove r y a tA pr i l 24, 2004, tw o m onths l a t e r . T he s um m a r y j udgm e ntm ot i on de a dl i ne w a s s e tf

orM a y 25, 2004. D u r in g M a r c h o f

2 0 0 4 , C a m p o s m o v e d a g a in f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l, a nd T utta nd K a y e m ove d t o de pos e the i nc a r c e r a t e d pl a i nt i f f . I n A pr i l , C a m pos o p p o s e d th e m o tio n f

o rd e p o s itio n o n th e g r o u n d s th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n a tto r n e y . T he c our ts t a y e d the c a s e pe ndi ng i t s c ons i de r a t i on of the m ot i on f

orappoi ntm e nt of c ouns e l . I n vi e w of

the s t a y , T utta nd K a y e m ove d t o e xt e nd the de a dl i ne f or d i sco v ery.5

I n A pr i l , the c our tappoi nt e d c ouns e l f orC a m pos a nd s t a y e d di s c ove r y f or thi rty day s i n o rdert o g i ve court -app oi nt ed coun se l t i m e t o revi ew the ca se . In Ju ly, T u ttan d K ay e r en ew ed th eir m o ti o n to d ep o se C am p o s. C am p o s’s c our t - appoi nt e d c ouns e l di d notf i l e a ny oppos i t i on t o de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on, a nd the c o u r t g r a n te d th e m o tio n , o r d e r in g th e d e p o s itio n to o c c u rw ith in th ir ty d a y s . T u tt a nd K a y e m ove d f

ora nd w e r e gr a nt e d a f

our - da y e xt e ns i on of

t i m e f orthe t a ki ng of C a m pos ’ s de pos i t i on. C am p o s w as d ep o sed o n A u g u st2 4 , 2 0 0 4 . A ft er th e d ep o si t i o n , d efen se coun se l advi se d C am po s’ s a tt orney thatthey bel i eved the H ec k defe nse had been est ab l i sh ed b y C am p o s’ s t est i m o n y. O n S e pt e m be r20, 2004, the c a s e w a s r e a s s i gne d t o the pr e s e nt l y pr e s i di ng d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e . A t th is p o in t, th e c a s e s e e m s to h a v e g r o u n d to a h a lt. T h e r e is no r e c or d a c t i vi ty a ta l l unt i l the ne xtM a y 10, 2005, w he n the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ordered the ca se t o b e r e- desi gn at ed as a T ra ck T w o cas e und erM i dd l e D i stri ctof F l o ri d a L o cal R u l e 3 . 0 5 an d d i rect i n g th e p art i es t o m eetan d p rep are a case m a na ge m e ntr e por t . U nde rL oc a l R ul e 3. 05( c ) ( 2) ( E ) , T r a c k T w o c a s e s s houl d be tr ie d w ith in tw o y e a r s o f f ilin g a n d , if

p o s s ib le , s u c h c a s e s s h o u ld b e tr ie d w ith in one y e a rof

f i l i ng. T he pa r t i e s f

i l e d the i rj oi ntc a s e m a na ge m e ntr e por ton J ul y 14, 2005, a nd on Jul y 15, the courtent er ed a C as e M anagem entand S chedul i ng O rder . T hatorderPlaintiff’s counsel noted that at the time he filed his motion to withdraw, De cember 16, 2 th etri alw a s s t i l ls e tf

o r th ef o l l o w i n gJu l y. 6 se tthe deadl i ne for s um m ary j ud gm entm ot i on s a tM ar ch 14 , 20 06 , and est abl i shed a tr i a l da t e of

J ul y 3, 2006. O n N o v e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u a s p o n te am en d ed th ese de a dl i ne s , m ovi ng the s um m a r y j udgm e ntde a dl i ne up t o F e brua r y 15, 2006, a nd the tr i a l da t e t o M a r c h 6, 2006. O n D e c e m b e r1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , C a m p o s ’s c o u r t- ap p o in te d c o u n s e l m o v e d to w i thdr a w the i rr e pr e s e nt a t i on, c i t i ng “ l e ga l r e s e a r c h, e thi c a l c ons i de r a t i ons , a nd i rr ec on ci l abl e di ff

er ence s betw ee n the un ders i gn ed att orneys and t he P l ai nt i ff . ” T he courtdeni ed the m ot i on on D ec em ber 16, no t i ng thatthe prel i m i nary pretri al c onf e r e nc e w a s s c he dul e d f

i ve da y s l a t e r , on D e c e m be r20. A tthe prel i m i nary pretri al confer ence , the di stri ctcourtno t ed thati thad m ov ed the ca se deadl i nes up i n o rdert o g etthe ca se concl ud ed w i thi n the three y e a r s m a n d a te d b y th e C iv il J u s tic e R e f o r m A c t. T h e c o u r t s ta te d th a t “I m o v e d it u p w h en I real i zed I w as v i o l at i n g th e C i v i l Ju st i ce R efo rm A ct . T h at ’ s w h y I m o v e d it u p .” T h e c o u r t a ls o r e f u s e d to a llo w c o u r t- ap p o in te d c o u n s e l to w i thd ra w , char ac t er i zi ng coun se l ’ s m ot i on as a “ l at e f i l i ng ” a nd an “ 11 ho ur” th r e que s t . N ot i ng a ga i n tha tthe c a s e m us tbe tr i e d w i thi n thr e e y e a r s of i t s f i l i ng, 2 the c our tr e m a i ne d f

i r m i n i t s c om m i tm e ntt o tr y the c a s e i n M a r c h.The c ourt noted that one reason f or ea rly filing of a dispositive motion i s “so that 3 de fendantsc an g o o n th e ir wa y , [a nd ] Mr . Ca

mpo s c an g e t on

wi th his l if

e . O f c ours e , it

is defendants whom the cour t ultim ately

sanctioned, a

nd Mr. Campos is incarc erated. 7 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld its f in a l p r e tr ia l c o n f

e r e n c e in th is c a s e o n F e b ru a r y 2 , 2 0 0 6 . A t th e c o n f

e r e n c e , th e c o u r t a n d c o u n s e l s p e n t c o n s id e r a b le tim e try in g to e s t a bl i s h the or de ra nd dur a t i on of tr i a l s , i nc l udi ng thi s one , s c he dul e d on the c our t ’ s M a r c h tr i a l c a l e nda r . D e e p i nt o thi s c onve r s a t i on, de f e nda nt s poi nt e d out tha tthe y w oul d be f

i l i ng a m ot i on f

ors um m a r y j udgm e nttha tthe y be l i e ve d m i ght be di sposi t i ve of the ca se . A tthi s poi nt , and for the fi rs tt i m e, the courtexpres se d i t s “ di s appoi ntm e nt ” tha tde f e nda nt s ha d notpr e vi ous l y f i l e d s uc h a m ot i on. D ef endant s r es po nd ed by po i nt i ng ou tthatthe ori gi nal tri al dat e w as ov er tw o m on ths aw ay , so thatany s uch m ot i on w ou l d n othave been du e f or ov era m onth. F ur the r m or e , the the n ope r a t i ve de a dl i ne f ors uc h m ot i ons w a s tw o w e e ks aw ay . F in ally, th ey n o ted th at th ey h ad m o re th an o n e c o n v er sa ti o n w ith C am p o s’s coun se l re gardi ng the H ec k i ss ue and i t s pot ent i al l y di sposi t i ve i m pacton the ca se . T he c our ta c know l e dge d tha tne i the rthe r e vi s e d northe or i gi na l de a dl i ne f or f i l i ng the m ot i on ha d pa s s e d, buts t a t e d tha ta n e a r l i e rf i l i ng w oul d ha ve be e n a “c o u r te o u s th in g to h a v e d o n e .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, h o w e v e r , g a v e n o n o tic e th a t it 3 w a s c ons i de r i ng s a nc t i ons . T he c our t , i n f a c t , s t a t e d tha ti tunde r s t ood w hy i tt ook s o l ong t o f

i l e s uc h a m ot i on w he n one r e pr e s e nt e d gove r nm e ntde f e nda nt s a nd w o rk ed w i th “ l i m i t ed reso u rces” o n “ a h u n d red ” cases.8

F i v e d ays aft er th i s co n feren ce, th e co u rten t ered a S eco n d A m en d ed C ase M a na ge m e nta nd S c he dul i ng O r de r . T he c our tdi d nota l t e rthe de a dl i ne f orf i l i ng the m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T w o d ay s bef ore the expi ra t i on of the deadl i ne, on F ebruary13 , 20 06 , defe nd ant s f i l ed thei r m ot i on , as se rt i ng bo th the H ec k a nd q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty d efen ses. C am po s’ s r es po nse vi go rousl y a ss ert ed the i napp l i cabi l i ty of H ec k , a nd un dert oo k t o d i st i ng ui sh the ca se s r el i ed up on by defe nd ant s. H e c ri t i ci ze d de f e nda nt s f orw a i t i ng “ unt i l the 11 hour ” t o f i l e the i rm ot i on. H e s ubm i tt e d the th a f f i da vi tof a n e xpe r ton us e of

f or c e w ho opi ne d tha tthe de put i e s c oul d notha ve b e lie v e d th a t th e iru s e o f f o r c e w a s r e a s o n a b le . H e a ls o m a d e th e a r g u m e n t, un supp ort ed by any l egal autho ri ty, thatdefe nd ant s had w ai ved t hei r r i gh tt o ass ert q u a lif ie d im m u n ity b e c a u s e th e m o tio n w a s n o t f ile d “in a n e x p e d itio u s m a n n e r .” O n M ar ch 3, 20 06 , the courtent er ed an order cont i nu i ng the fi nal pretri al c onf e r e nc e i n thi s c a s e . T he c our ta l s o or de r e d C a m pos ’ s c ouns e l t o f i l e a l i s tof e xpe ns e s i nc ur r e d i n pr os e c ut i ng the c a s e . N o not i c e of i nt e ntt o s a nc t i on, nor he a r i ng on s uc h a m a tt e rw a s gi ve n. O n M a r c h 30, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n opi ni on a nd or de rgr a nt i ng defe nd ant s’ m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T he court ’ s opi ni on spentfour pages exam i ni ng the H

ec k is s u e , c o n c lu d in g th a t “d e s p ite P la in tif f’s e a r n e s t a n d n o b le a tt e m ptt o vi gor ous l y pr os e c ut e thi s a c t i on, ” i tw a s c l e a rtha ti tw a s ba r r e d. T he n,Nor wa s a hea ringheld on def

endants’ motion for reconsideration. 4 9 o n i t s o wn m o t i o n , th e c o u r te n t e r e d th e s a n c t i o n s o r d e rap p e a l e d h e r e i n . No hear i ng w as prov i ded. N o l egal autho ri ty w as ci t ed for the aw ar d. W e r evi ew such a n a w a r d f

o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Serra C h evro l et , In c. v. G en era l

Mo to rs C or p. , 44 6 F . 3d 11 37 (11 C i r. 20 06 ). th II . F i r s t , w e not e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpr ovi de de f e nda nt s m e a ni ngf

ul not i c e ora n oppor tuni ty t o be he a r d pr i ort o the e ntr y of s a nc t i ons . W ha t e ve rthe

4 s o u r c e o f a u th o r ity u p o n w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d r e w , s a n c tio n s d e s ig n e d to co m p en sa te o n e p ar ty fo r e x p en se s in cu rr ed d u e to th e o p p o sin g p ar ty’s m is c o n d u c t is in th e n a tu r e o f c iv il c o n te m p t, r e q u ir in g n o tic e a n d th e o p p o r tu n ity to b e h e a r d p r io rto th e a w a r d . I d . a t 1 1 4 7 ; B . L . H

arbert Int ern. , L L Cv. H

er cul es St e e l C o. , 44 1 F . 3d 90 5, 91 4 (11 C i r. 20 06 ) ( “ [W ] e c an ra i se and con si der th s a nc t i ons on ourow n, a f t e rgi vi ng the pa r ty not i c e a nd a n oppor tuni ty t o be h e a r d ” ) ; Ka

p la n v . Da i mle r - C h r

ys l e r, A . G. , 331 F . 3d 1251, 1255 ( 11 C i r . 2003) th (c ou rt -i ni t i at ed sa nct i on s r equi re m ea ni ng ful no t i ce and o pp ortun i ty t o b e hea rd p r io rto e n try ) ; Oa ke s v . Ho r i z o n Fi n a n c i a l

, S . A. , 259 F . 3d 1315, 1320 n. 5 ( 11 th C i r . 2001) ( not i c e a nd oppor tuni ty t o be he a r d r e qui r e d a s pa r tof s a nc t i ons p ro cess). E v en th e aw ard o f san ct i o n s u n d er th e co u rt ’ s i n h eren tp o w er m u stAdditionally , the impositi on of sanc tions mustinclude a determination of the a bility of 5 the sanc tioned parties to pay . Martin v. Automobili LamborghiniExc lusive, Inc ., 307 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11 Cir. 2002). The sa nctions order

in this case aw ards sa

nctions ag ainst the deputies as th well as c ounsel, appa

rently on the basis of plaintiff’ s submissi on of costs, without benef it of any re s p o n s ef

ro md e f e n d ant s o r

c o n s i d e rat i o no f

th e i r a b i l i ty t o p ay. Th edis tric t c ourt

alsoa c c us e d th ede fendantsof “permittingthi s c a seto u nn e c e ssa ri ly 6 languish on the court’s doc ket for over threeyear s.” In fairne ss to defenda nts, it must be noted that they did not bring this ca se; plaintiff did. Additionally , after its re-a ssignment to the presently presidingjudge , eight months elapsed bef ore themag istrate judg e issued a scheduling order . Heck bars plaintiff’ s claim bec ause it would nec essarily imply that his conviction for 7 resistingarrest was invalid. 10 “ com pl y w i th the m andat es of du e proces s. ” C am bers v. N A SC O , Inc. , 5 0 1 U . S. 32 , 49 -50 (19 91 ). 5 W e a g r e e w ith d e f

e n d a n ts th a t n o tic e a n d a h e a r in g w a s r e q u ir e d in th is c a s e . T he di stri ctcourtsa nct i on ed defendant s f or fa i l i ng t o “ expedi t i ou sl y f i l e [ the H

ec k] m ot i on , ” c hara ct er i zi ng the ent i re re stof the ca se as “ un nece ss ary” si nce “ pl ai nt i ff di d notha ve a m e r i t or i ous c l a i m . ” H a d the y be e n a f f or de d the i rdue pr oc e s s r i ght t o answ erthese cr i t i ci sm s, defe nd ant s c ou l d h ave poi nt ed ou tthatno ton l y had they di sc usse d the H

ec k defe nse on m ore than o ne occas i on w i th C am po s’ s c ou nsel ( in a d d itio n , o f

c o u r s e , to its p r e s e n c e in th e irf o r m a l A n s w e r ) , b u t c o u n s e l h a d to ld de f e nda nt s he thoughti tw a s di s t i ngui s ha bl e on the f a c t s of thi s c a s e . I tt ook the

6 d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u rp a g e s to r e a c h th e c o n c lu s io n th a t H ec k b a r s p la in tif

f’s c la im in thi s c a s e , a c onc l us i on r e a c he d i n pa r t , the c our ts a i d, be c a us e i tdi d notpos s e s s the p s y c h ic a b ilitie s n e c e s s a r y to d e te r m in e o n w h a t b a s is th e ju ry r e a c h e d its v e r d ic t. 711

S i m i l ar l y, defe nd ant s c anno tbe faul t ed for notant i ci pat i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt w ou l d u l t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthei r H ec k d efen se w as m eri t o ri o u s. I n a d d itio n , d e f

e n d a n ts h a v e b e e n h a n d ic ap p e d in th is ap p e a l b y h a v in g to s p e c u la te u p o n w h a t a u th o r ity th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e lie d f o rits a w a r d o f

s a n c tio n s . W hi l e notdras t i ca l l y di ff er ent , i ti s non ethel es s true thatthe prop ri ety of the aw ar d of s a nc t i ons de pe nds t o s om e de gr e e upon the s t a tut or y ba s i s f orthe i ra w a r d, i n c l u d i n g th e s c o p e o f

th e c o u r t ’ s a u th o r i ty u n d e rth e s t a tu t e . F o re x a m p l e , we ha ve s a i d r e pe a t e dl y tha t28 U . S . C . § 1927 i s nota “ c a t c h- a l l ” f ora w a r di ng s a nc t i ons i n a c a s e w he r e the r e i s nots om e othe rm or e appr opr i a t e ve hi c l e f or d o in g s o . Sc hw ar t

zv . Mi l l on A i rC o. , 3 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 5 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . th S i m i l ar l y, w e have s ai d thatw hen t he di stri ctcourtre l i es up on i t s i nh er entpo w er t o s a nc t i on the pa r t i e s be f or e i t , i tm us tpr oc e e d c a ut i ous l y , a nd “ w i th r e s tr a i nta nd di sc re t i on . ” B

y r ne v . N ez hat , 26 1 F . 3d 10 75 , 11 06 (11 C i r. 20 01 ). th O n ap p e a l, o u rr e v ie w is a ls o h in d e r e d b y th e f a ilu r e o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s pe c i f y upon w ha ta uthor i ty i tr e l i e s . A c our ta bus e s i t s di s c r e t i on i n e nt e r i ng s a n c tio n s “if

it ap p lie s a n in c o r r e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d , f o llo w s im p r o p e rp r o c e d u r e s in m aki ng the det erm i nat i on , or m akes fi nd i ng s of f ac tthatar e c l ea rl y e rr on eous. ” Sc h w a r tz , 34 1 F . 3d at12 25 . F or exam pl e, S ec t i on 19 27 re qu i re s thatthe di stri ct c o u r t f in d o b je c tiv e b a d f

a ith b e f o r e im p o s in g s a n c tio n s f o r“v e x a tio u s ” c o n d u c t. I d . W ith o u t k n o w in g u p o n w h a t a u th o r ity th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, r e lie s , it is im p o s s ib leAl so no t f a c tually tr uewa s th ec ourt ’s a ssertion that c ouns e l f

aile d toa pp e ar p e rs on ally 8 at mediation. The c ourt appe ars to haverelied upon a faulty mediator’s report for

this incorrec t asser tion. 12 f o ru s t o p e r f

o r m a m e a n i n g f

u l r e v i e w. O r di na r i l y , w e w oul d va c a t e thi s a w a r d a nd r e m a nd f ora he a r i ng on the s a nc t i ons a w a r d, a f

f or di ng the c our tthe oppor tuni ty t o s pe c i f y the a uthor i ty upon w hi c h i tr e l i e s a nd de f

e nda nt s the i rdue pr oc e s s r i ghtt o be he a r d be f or e s a nc t i ons a r e a w a r d e d . Se e e . g. , Sh eet s v. Y a m a h a Mo to rs C o rp . , 89 1 F . 2d 53 3, 53 9-40 (5 th C i r . 1990) ( r e m a ndi ng f ors pe c i f i c a t i on of

rul e s r e l i e d upon f

ora w a r d of sa nct i on s) . In thi s c as e, ho w ever , w e dec l i ne t o d o so b ec ause w e hol d that , un der a n y le g a l th e o r y , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in im p o s in g s a n c tio n s in th i s case b ecau se i t s fi n d i n g s o f factare cl earl y erro n eo u s. D ef endant s i n thi s c as e di d n otvi ol at e a ny courtrul e, courtdeadl i ne, court req u est , o r o th er co u rtreq u i rem en tth atw o u l d j u st i fy th e i m p o si t i o n o f san ct i o n s. 8 I nde e d, the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e num e r a t i on of the r e a s ons f

ors a nc t i ons i nc l ude s no de a dl i ne tha tde f

e nda nt s m i s s e d, onl y the ge ne r a l c om pl a i nttha tde f e nda nt s di d not a c ts pe e di l y e nough t o a l l ow the c our tt o a voi d i t s s e l f - i m pos e d de a dl i ne of di s pos i t i on w i thi n thr e e y e a r s of f i l i ng – a de a dl i ne m i s s e d, a tl e a s ti n pa r t , by the eig h t m o n th s th at elap se d b etw ee n th e r ea ss ig n m en t o f ju d g es an d th e m ag istrate’s is s u a n c e o f

a n e w s c h e d u lin g o r d e r . T h e r e f o r e , th e r e is s im p ly n o f a c tu a l b a s is upon w hi c h t o f

i nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt s w e r e r e c a l c i tr a ntorothe r w i s e i n vi ol a t i onAdditionally , Rule 54 does not authorize a c ourt to order that the prevailing pa

rty pay 9 the nonprevailing pa

rty its costs. W

orsham v. United States , 828 F.2d 1525, 1527 ( 11 Cir. th 1987). 13 o f co u rtru l es o r req u est s. A s t o th e co u rt ’ s co m p l ai n tth atth e d efen d an t s al l o w ed th e case t o l an g u i sh upon i t s doc ke t , w he n the y a tt e m pt e d t o r e m ove the c a s e f r om the doc ke tby m o tio n to d is m is s b a s e d u p o n p la in tif f’s f a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te th e c a s e f o rs ix m o n th s, th e d i stri ctco u rtch aract eri zed th e m o t i o n as w i th o u tm eri tb ecau se pl ai nt i ff had m i ss ed no court -i m po se d d ea dl i ne. F i na l l y , m e r e l y be c a us e the c our tul t i m a t e l y rul e d i n de f e nda nt s ’ f

a voron the H ec k d e f e n s e , w e d o n o t a g r e e th a t def en da n t s c a n be c ha r ge d w i th l i a bi l i ty f or p la i n t i f f’s m e r itle s s c la im . I n th e tw o c a s e s c ite d b y C a m p o s in h is o p p o s itio n to r e h e a r in g , c o s ts w e r e ta x e d a g a in s t p r e v a ilin g d e f e n d a n ts b e c a u s e th e y e n g a g e d in egre gi ou s c on du ct , i ncl ud i ng vi ol at i ng courtorders and fal se l y c l ai m i ng cr i t i ca l f a c ts to b e u n tru e , a s w e ll a s r a is in g a w in n in g is s u e f o rth e f ir s t tim e a f

te rtr ia l. Sh eet s v. Y a m a h a Mo to rs C o rp ., 8 9 1 F .2 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 9 - 4 0 ( 5 C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; W eave r v . th B o w ers , 657 F . 2d 1356, 1362. N e i the rof the s e c a s e s i s r e m ot e l y appl i c a bl e t o the fa ct s of thi s c as e. 9 II I. W e s uppor tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pow e rt o s upe r vi s e i t s doc ke ta nd t o s a nc t i on pa r t i e s unde rthe appr opr i a t e l e ga l a uthor i ty . N one the l e s s , w e c onc l ude tha tthe14

e xe r c i s e of

tha tpow e ri n thi s c a s e w a s a n a bus e of di s c r e t i on be c a us e the f i ndi ngs o f factu p o n w h i ch i tw as b ased w ere cl earl y erro n eo u s. D efen d an t s d i d n o tm i ss a n y c o u r t- im p o s e d d e a d lin e s , n o rf a il to r a is e a n y m e r ito r io u s d e f e n s e s in a tim e ly fash i o n . A cco rd i n g l y, th e aw ard o f san ct i o n s i s R E VE R S E D.