Opinion ID: 777616
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injunctive Sanctions

Text: 25 Rule 11 also authorizes the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) (the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature). The 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to the Rule emphasize that: [t]he court has significant discretion in determining what sanctions, if any, should be imposed for a violation, subject to the principle that the sanctions should not be more severe than reasonably necessary to deter repetition of the conduct by the offending person or comparable conduct by similarly situated persons. In Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 807, 811 (6th Cir.1996), we modified a district court's nonmonetary sanction under Rule 11 that had permanently enjoined a plaintiff from filing any civil lawsuit [in federal court] alleging or asserting factual or legal claims based upon or arising out of the legal or factual claims alleged in this action or any of the actions underlying it. Ortman v. Thomas, 906 F.Supp. 416, 424 (E.D.Mich.1995), aff'd, 99 F.3d 807 (6th Cir.1996). Instead of the permanent injunction, we imposed a prefiling requirement, mandating that the plaintiff obtain certification from a magistrate judge that the claims were not frivolous or asserted for an improper purpose before filing further complaints. We held that [w]e do not believe a person can be absolutely foreclosed from initiating an action in a court of the United States, though it is permissible to require one who has abused the legal process to make a showing that a tendered lawsuit is not frivolous or vexatious before permitting it to be filed. Ortman, 99 F.3d at 811; see also Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir.1998) (There is nothing unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation.); Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir.1987). 18 26 In this case, the district court permanently enjoined the Tropfs and their attorney from filing any civil lawsuit in a United States District Court alleging or asserting factual or legal claims based upon or arising out of any of the legal or factual claims alleged in these actions without written permission from the district court. J.A. at 897 (Apr. 5, 2000 Order Granting Sanctions). Although the Tropfs do not have a history of vexatious or repetitive litigation in the federal courts, they do have such a history in the state courts regarding this matter. And as the district court found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Tropfs' claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims had been litigated in the state courts, it is likely that any other federal court would also lack subject matter jurisdiction over the legal and factual claims that the Tropfs allege in this case. We therefore conclude that the above injunction does not seem to be more severe than reasonably necessary to prevent the Tropfs from filing further repetitive actions in the federal courts. 27 The district court also enjoined the Tropfs from filing any civil lawsuit in any state court or administrative proceeding alleging or asserting a factual or legal claim based upon or arising out of any of the legal or factual claims alleged in these actions against the federal defendants without first posting a surety bond or cash in the amount of $50,000. J.A. at 897 (Apr. 5, 2000 Order Granting Sanctions). This circuit has not addressed whether a district court can impose prefiling requirements on parties in state courts and state administrative proceedings. The Fifth Circuit, however, has permitted the imposition of injunctive sanctions barring any future litigation by the parties on any cause of action arising from the fact situation at issue in the federal district court. See Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp., 990 F.2d 1489, 1498-99 (5th Cir.1993), cert.denied, 510 U.S. 1044, 114 S.Ct. 690, 126 L.Ed.2d 658 (1994); Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (5th Cir.1980). In Villar, the court stated generally that federal courts have broad powers to protect their judgments and the integrity of the courts as a whole. Id. at 1499. In Harrelson, the court located its power to issue the injunction against the parties in the All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 19 Commentators have also stated that: Basic power to protect the preclusive effects of a federal judgment by injunction may well inhere in the very existence of federal courts. If a more definite grant of general authority is needed, it can be found in the All Writs Act. As to any individual case, the grant of subject matter jurisdiction that supported the original judgment continues to provide ancillary jurisdiction for a protective injunction. 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4405 (1981) (footnote omitted). 28 The Anti-Injunction Act, however, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2283, prohibits a federal court from issuing injunctions to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments. The Supreme Court has held that this prohibition extends to indirect injunctions against parties. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970) (It is settled that the prohibition of § 2283 cannot be evaded by addressing the order to the parties or prohibiting utilization of the results of a completed state proceeding.); see also Silcox v. United Trucking Serv., Inc., 687 F.2d 848, 850 (6th Cir.1982). But the Supreme Court has also held that the Act only prohibits injunctions against pending state court proceedings; the Act does not preclude injunctions against the institution of state court proceedings. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 485 n. 2, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965). We have held that the Anti Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions against state court proceedings commenced after the institution of the federal suit but before the ... injunction was issued. Roth v. Bank of the Commonwealth, 583 F.2d 527, 528 (6th Cir.1978), cert. granted, 440 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 1420, 59 L.Ed.2d 632, cert. dismissed, 442 U.S. 925, 99 S.Ct. 2852, 61 L.Ed.2d 292 (1979). The Supreme Court has held that proceedings for the purposes of the Act include all steps taken or which may be taken in the state court or by its officers from the institution to the close of the final process. Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 403, 56 S.Ct. 278, 80 L.Ed. 293 (1935). 29 In this case, the district court's injunction as written does not directly or indirectly enjoin pending state proceedings; the injunction requires only that the Tropfs post a bond before filing civil lawsuits in state court or state administrative proceedings. However, as discussed above, while their federal action was pending, the Tropfs filed another claim in state court on February 29, 2000 against Holzman, and they amended the complaint on January 8, 2001. Pursuant to the sanctions order issued on April 5, 2000, the U.S. district court issued an order of contempt and enjoining and/or dismissing state court proceeding on April 25, 2001. In the April 25, 2001 order, the district court found that the Tropfs had failed to post a $50,000 bond or cash before filing their amended complaint in the state court against Holzman, and the court held that if the Tropfs and their attorney failed to post the bond or cash within a day, they would be required immediately [to] file an Order dismissing the State Court proceeding. 20 In addition, the district court held that if the Tropfs and their attorney did not comply with the April 25, 2001 order, they would be held in criminal contempt of the court. Inasmuch as the April 25, 2001 order indirectly enjoins a state court proceeding commenced after the institution of the federal suit but before the injunction was issued, it squarely violates the prohibitions of the Anti-Injunction Act. 21 We conclude, therefore, that the district court abused its discretion in its April 25, 2001 order indirectly enjoining pending state court proceedings. 30 We also conclude that the district court's April 5, 2000 injunction requiring the Tropfs to post a $50,000 bond or cash before filing a civil lawsuit in any state court or state administrative proceeding was an abuse of discretion as it applies to future filings of the Tropfs. Where a district court dismisses a case for lack of jurisdiction, it does not have the authority, either inherently or under the All Writs Act, to enjoin actions by the parties in the state courts or state administrative proceedings. As noted above, the Supreme Court has held that the Anti-Injunction Act only prohibits pending state court proceedings, and we have held that the Act does not prohibit injunctions against state administrative proceedings. American Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke, 708 F.2d 202, 204 (6th Cir.1983) (state administrative proceedings). Therefore, the district court did not violate the Anti Injunction Act in enjoining the Tropfs from filing future civil lawsuits in the state courts or state administrative proceedings. 31 However, the All Writs Act only authorizes the issuance of writs in aid of ... jurisdiction[]. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). We have held that federal courts must have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction in order to issue a writ in aid of such jurisdiction. See Michigan v. City of Allen Park, 954 F.2d 1201, 1216 (6th Cir.1992); Maczko v. Joyce, 814 F.2d 308, 310 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 828, 108 S.Ct. 98, 98 L.Ed.2d 58 (1987). Even if we located the district court's authority to impose the injunction in some inherent power, such power is restricted to the aid of federal jurisdiction. See Villar, 990 F.2d at 1498-99; Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra, § 4405. And this court has stated that even if the Anti Injunction Act does not apply, the power of a district court to enjoin a litigant from proceeding in a state action ... should be exercised sparingly. Silcox, 687 F.2d at 850. Because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Tropfs' claims and did not adjudicate them on the merits, the court should not have enjoined the Tropfs from filing any civil lawsuit in the state courts or in state administrative proceedings without posting a bond or cash. The state courts have the full power to decide how to handle any further litigation in state court involving this protracted matter.