1

 Plaintiff’s motion does not state which Defendants it is directed toward, but the motion

cites allegedly false statements in motions filed by Defendants Guest and Solomon. The

Court therefore presumes that the motion is directed toward these Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HELMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN GUEST, KATHLEEN SOLOMON,

OSCODA COUNTY, KEVIN GRACE,

DAVE STENZEL, ED POKRZYWNICKI,

and RONALD NIGHTINGALE,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-11697

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on July 14, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On May 4, 2009, William Helmer (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed this pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions, filed on June 16, 2011 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. For the

reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants1

 have made false statements in documents filed with

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 143 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1434
2

this Court, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). Plaintiff claims that

Defendants have repeatedly stated that his criminal case number 09-005-FY was dismissed

pursuant to a plea agreement obtained in case number 08-1035-FC. Plaintiff claims that

the case was dismissed absent any plea agreement. Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $500 from

each Defendant and requests that each Defendant admit that case number 09-005-FY was

not dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement.

By signing a motion, an attorney or party certifies to the best of his knowledge,

information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, that the

factual contentions in the motion have evidentiary support or will likely have such support

after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 

Defendants note that the district court order granting the prosecutor’s motion of nolle

prosequi provides that the case was dismissed “[p]ursuant to plea agreement in 23rd

Circuit Court File #08-1035-FC.” See Pl.’s Mot. 8. Plaintiff asserts that this document is

inaccurate, but Defendants’ assertions clearly have some degree of evidentiary support. 

The Court therefore cannot conclude that Defendants have violated Rule 11(b)(3).

The Court also notes that the precise reason for the dismissal of case number 09-005-

FY is not at issue in this suit. Plaintiff’s remaining claims include a claim of malicious

prosecution against Defendant Nightingale and excessive force claims against Defendants

Guest, Pokrzywnicki, and Stenzel. The dismissal of case number 09-005-FY is not at all

relevant to these claims. The Court believes that no further time need be spent resolving

such matters.

Accordingly,

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 143 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1435
3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

D. Randall Gilmer, Esq.

G. Gus Morris, Esq.

William Helmer, #140677

Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility

1727 West Bluewater Highway

Ionia, MI 48846

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 143 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1436