Opinion ID: 620732
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rutgers’ Request for Sanctions

Text: Rutgers urges us to impose sanctions against Brow pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, which provides that “[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” This Court has generally imposed Rule 38 sanctions only in cases of blatant frivolity, bad faith, and/or repetitive filing. See, e.g., In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2000); Moore v. Time, Inc., 180 F.3d 463, 463–64 (2d Cir. 1999). Brow’s appeal, while devoid of merit, does not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct. To the extent that Rutgers asks us to instruct the district court to provide Brow with a reasonable opportunity to show cause why a filing injunction should not be imposed against him, its request would be more appropriately directed to district court in the first instance. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED and Rutgers’ request for sanctions is DENIED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6