Opinion ID: 3164581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sandifer iii sanction

Text: The only issue adequately briefed on appeal is the third issue: whether the district court erred in sanctioning Wilson, including a $1,000 monetary sanction, for his actions relating to Sandifer III. As Wilson correctly notes, it appears the district court exercised its inherent authority in sanctioning him. See Blanco River, L.L.C. v. Green, 457 F. App’x 431, 438 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished) (analyzing the sanctions as “imposed pursuant to the 4 Considering Wilson does not appeal the district court’s final judgment dismissing with prejudice Sandifer’s underlying consolidated action, the first two issues are also mooted because there is no longer a “live” issue regarding Wilson’s enrollment as co-counsel. See Fla. Bd. of Bus. Regulation v. NLRB, 605 F.2d 916, 918 (5th Cir. 1979) (“An action becomes moot when ‘the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legal cognizable interest in the outcome.’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). Moreover, Wilson fails to cite any authority for his argument that the alleged invalidity of the Sandifer I order affects our analysis of the Sandifer III sanction. See In re Bouchie, 324 F.3d at 786. 6 Case: 15-30308 Document: 00513316467 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-30308 court’s inherent authority” when the record indicated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was not the basis for the sanctions). “We review sanctions imposed under a court’s inherent authority for abuse of discretion.” Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1995). As the Supreme Court has recognized, such inherent power is “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). “A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees.” Id. at 50. Here, the district court complied with due process because it ordered Wilson to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for disregarding previous orders, allowed Wilson to file a response, and held a hearing before sanctioning Wilson. 5 See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 968 F.2d 523, 530 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[Due process] requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”); see also Hazeur v. Keller Indus., No. 92-3488, 1993 WL 14973, at  (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished) (holding that due process rights were not violated by the district court failing to expressly articulate that it was imposing sanctions pursuant to its inherent power). “In order to impose sanctions against an attorney under its inherent power, a court must make a specific finding that the attorney acted in ‘bad faith.’” Chaves v. M/V Medina Star, 47 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1995); see also 5 Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Wilson for violating past orders, we need not address whether the district court provided improper notice of its alternative reason for imposing sanctions, Wilson’s alleged violation of the duty of candor. 7 Case: 15-30308 Document: 00513316467 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-30308 In re Yorkshire, LLC, 540 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2008). However, “[w]hen bad faith is patent from the record and specific findings are unnecessary to understand the misconduct giving rise to the sanction, the necessary finding of ‘bad faith’ may be inferred.” Blanco River, 457 F. App’x at 438–39 (quoting In re Sealed Appellant, 194 F.3d 666, 671 (5th Cir. 1999)). “A court abuses its discretion when its finding of bad faith is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Crowe v. Smith, 261 F.3d 558, 563 (5th Cir. 2001). If the district court applied the correct legal standard in making the finding, then the finding will not be set aside unless “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Accordingly, “[i]f the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573–74. Here, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning Wilson for violating the court’s previous orders. Violating those orders constitutes bad faith. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 57 (“As long as the party receives an appropriate hearing, . . . the party may be sanctioned for abuses of process occurring beyond the courtroom, such as disobeying the court’s orders.” (citation omitted)). And based on the record as a whole, we cannot say that the district court made a mistake in finding that Wilson violated those orders. Indeed, while Wilson contends that “[t]here was no knowledge on [his part] that enrolling in [Sandifer III] when it was pending before another [judge of the district court] was not authorized,” the district court had already admonished Wilson for a similar act in Sandifer II. After 8 Case: 15-30308 Document: 00513316467 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-30308 Wilson filed Sandifer II—noting in the civil cover sheet that Sandifer I was related—Sandifer II was transferred to the district court judge that presided over Sandifer I. The district court then struck Wilson from the record as counsel in Sandifer II, expressly stating that “it appears to [the district court] that [Wilson] clearly attempted to and did make an end run around [the Sandifer I order] by filing another suit.” Subsequently, Wilson attempted to obscure his involvement by filing Sandifer III with the complaint signed only by Settle, but the complaint “was marked deficient” because it was signed and filed by different attorneys. Settle re-filed Sandifer III, and Wilson then moved to enroll as co-counsel when “[Wilson] presumed that there had been a decision made not to transfer it [to the district court judge that handled the previous actions].” Each of Sandifer’s actions involved related claims by Sandifer arising out of her previous employment with the Sheriff’s Office, and the district court ultimately required Settle to file a consolidated complaint. Based on the record as a whole, “the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible,” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573–74, and therefore the court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Wilson for his bad faith in violating the past orders. 6 Moreover, the Sandifer III sanction is appropriate in scope. “[T]he sanctioning court must use the least restrictive sanction necessary to deter the inappropriate behavior.” In re First City Bancorportion of Tex. Inc., 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, the district court had already sanctioned Wilson in Sandifer II for violating a previous order by striking Wilson as counsel of record for Sandifer II. Because striking Wilson as counsel was not sufficient 6In his reply brief, Wilson contends for the first time that the Sandifer III sanctions should be vacated because of the alleged invalidity of the Sandifer I order. However, “[a]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived.” Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 794 F.3d 507, 508 (5th Cir. 2015). 9 Case: 15-30308 Document: 00513316467 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 No. 15-30308 to deter Wilson from violating the district court’s orders, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an additional monetary sanction of $1,000 when Wilson undertook similar behavior in Sandifer III. See Bancorporation, 282 F.3d at 867 (holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction of $25,000 after counsel disregarded the court’s previous admonishments). Moreover, considering Wilson attempted to obfuscate his involvement in Sandifer III by originally filing the complaint with Settle’s signature, the district court did not abuse its discretion in further prohibiting Wilson “from drafting documents in this case and from acting as a de facto attorney for [Sandifer].” See Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 86 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996) (requiring the court to use “less restrictive measure[s]” only “[i]f there is a reasonable probability that a lesser sanction will have the desired effect”). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Wilson for violating the court’s previous orders.