Court Opinion

ID: 9804632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:01:15.995434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:30:22.767326
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11120   Document: 73-1    Date Filed: 08/31/2023   Page: 1 of 16

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-11120
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        ALLSTATE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY INC,
        MORRIS BART LLC,
        CLAUDE E. HUNDLEY, III,
        KEITH GANN,
        Attorney,
        ALBERT J. TROUSDALE, II,
        Attorney, et al.,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120         Document: 73-1         Date Filed: 08/31/2023         Page: 2 of 16

        2                          Opinion of the Court                       22-11120

                                ____________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Alabama
                        D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00743-LCB
                             ____________________

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              Plaintiff Wendell O’Neal appeals the district court’s order
        holding him in civil contempt. After careful review, we affirm.
                                     BACKGROUND
               This is one of several lawsuits filed by Plaintiff that arise out
        of a 2018 automobile accident. Unhappy with the settlement
        agreements from his state-court action concerning the car accident,
        Plaintiff filed this action seeking federal review of those agree-
        ments. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-mat-
        ter jurisdiction and determined that sanctions were necessary be-
        cause of Plaintiff’s costly, abusive, and vexatious filing conduct. 1
        Further, based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 11 and
        the court’s inherent powers, the court ordered Plaintiff to pay
        $6,500 in monetary sanctions to the defendants. The court also is-
        sued a permanent injunction that prohibits Plaintiff from

        1 Plaintiff has sued over 400 parties in the past two decades, and all but two of

        those suits have been without merit.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120        Document: 73-1        Date Filed: 08/31/2023        Page: 3 of 16

        22-11120                  Opinion of the Court                              3

        submitting any court filings without court approval and requires
        him to post a thousand-dollar bond to commence any lawsuit.
                Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order. This Court af-
        firmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit and the Rule 11 sanctions or-
        der in full. O’Neal v. Allstate Indem. Ins. Co., Inc., No. 20-14712, 2021
        WL 4852222, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2021). After this Court issued
        its mandate, the district court ordered Plaintiff to pay the monetary
        sanctions within a week and directed Defendants to subsequently
        file status reports stating whether Plaintiff had paid.
                Plaintiff moved for leave to obtain relief from the monetary
        sanctions based on what he characterized as newly discovered evi-
        dence that defendant Allstate Indemnity Insurance Co. (“Allstate”)
        had withheld $3,002.86 in insurance proceeds contrary to the set-
        tlement agreement in their prior state-court action. 2 Plaintiff
        claimed the evidence would give the district court subject-matter
        jurisdiction over his suit and therefore render the court’s order dis-
        missing the suit for lack of jurisdiction invalid. Disagreeing, the
        district court denied the motion after concluding that nothing
        Plaintiff submitted constituted new evidence nor demonstrated
        that the court had gained subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit.
        Plaintiff attempted to file an interlocutory appeal of that order and

        2 Defense counsel noted at the subsequent show-cause hearing that Allstate
        was legally required to pay that portion of the settlement agreement to a hos-
        pital that had placed a lien on the insurance proceeds.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120         Document: 73-1        Date Filed: 08/31/2023         Page: 4 of 16

        4                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11120

        the order directing him to pay the monetary sanctions, but the dis-
        trict court held he was not entitled to pursue either appeal.
                After Plaintiff failed to pay the $6,500 by the specified dead-
        line, the court scheduled a hearing to give Plaintiff the opportunity
        to show cause as to why he should not be held in civil contempt.
        The order expressly stated that imprisonment was a possible sanc-
        tion if Plaintiff was found in civil contempt. Plaintiff was given
        leave to file a response to the order, but enjoined from filing any
        other documents until the hearing.
               The show cause hearing was held the next month, on April
        4, 2022. At the beginning of the hearing, Plaintiff requested ap-
        pointment of counsel because he believed the hearing was criminal
        in nature. The court denied the request, noting that the hearing
        was for civil contempt. 3 Also, at the hearing, Plaintiff acknowl-
        edged his awareness that the order required him to pay $6,500 in
        sanctions and his understanding that it was the purpose of the hear-
        ing to determine the reasons why he had not done so.
               In response to the court’s question why he had not paid the
        monetary sanctions ordered by the court, Plaintiff indicated that he
        been granted social security benefits based on disability and that his
        Stafford (student) loan had likewise been conditionally discharged

        3 In its subsequent order, the district court explained that it had followed the
        standards set out by the United States Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers, 564
        U.S. 431 (2011), in determining that appointment of counsel was not appropri-
        ate or required. As noted infra, Plaintiff has not properly challenged on appeal
        the failure to appoint counsel.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120        Document: 73-1         Date Filed: 08/31/2023       Page: 5 of 16

        22-11120                  Opinion of the Court                              5

        because of this disability determination. According to Plaintiff, his
        status under the two above programs required that he not earn any
        money that would put his income above the poverty level. 4
                As to the amount of his social security disability payment,
        Plaintiff indicated that he thought he received $840 a month, which
        he estimated would add up to $9,100 a year in social security disa-
        bility payments, but he referred the court to the document from
        the Social Security Administration. That document confirmed that
        Plaintiff would receive $841 a month for the year 2022, which in
        fact would total $10,092 a year.
                 Following Plaintiff’s statement suggesting that he had no
        other source of income, the court inquired about a company with
        which Plaintiff was affiliated—Thirteenth Dimension, LLC—that
        Plaintiff had apparently referenced in an earlier affidavit. Plaintiff
        responded that Thirteenth Dimension, LLC dealt in crisis manage-
        ment. According to plaintiff, his work with Thirteenth Dimension
        involved helping clients with insurance claims by doing research
        on Google to provide answers for them and then referring them to
        counsel, if necessary. He indicated that he had one client now, but
        that over the last 12 months he had had four different clients in
        Nevada who were involved in a lawsuit against an insurance com-
        pany based on an automobile accident. While these people were
        still clients, Plaintiff said he was currently unable to help them be-
        cause their case was dismissed and is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

        4 In 2022, the poverty level for purposes of federal programs was $13,590. See

        HealthCare.gov/glossary/federal poverty..
USCA11 Case: 22-11120         Document: 73-1        Date Filed: 08/31/2023          Page: 6 of 16

        6                         Opinion of the Court                          22-11120

        Plaintiff further noted that he was also a plaintiff in that case be-
        cause, as part of a contingency fee arrangement, the other plaintiffs
        had assigned to Plaintiff proceeds of their action based on his refer-
        ral of the case to a law firm in Las Vegas. 5 Plaintiff stated that the
        clients in the Nevada action had paid him nothing, but he did not
        indicate whether the existing client had paid him anything.
                At this point in the colloquy, Plaintiff expressed concern that
        the court’s line of inquiry about other potential sources of income
        required him to become a witness against himself in violation of
        his Fifth Amendment rights. In elaborating on this concern, he sug-
        gested no worries about a criminal prosecution, but instead his
        concern about the impact of his testimony and the proceedings on
        the Department of Education’s conditional decision to discharge
        his student loans. He noted that he was being monitored for three
        years by the Department and that if he earned income that put him
        over the poverty level, the Department could cancel this discharge:
        a decision that would cost him $50,000 in terms of his student loan
        debt. Plaintiff reasoned that if he paid $6,500, this figure, when
        added to his disability check each month, would put him over the
        poverty line. In short, Plaintiff seemed to be concerned that the
        Department of Education might well inquire where that money
        came from.
              Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s reluctance to talk about Thir-
        teenth Dimension, the district court continued the inquiry, asking

        5 Plaintiff has acknowledged that he is not licensed to practice law.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120        Document: 73-1        Date Filed: 08/31/2023        Page: 7 of 16

        22-11120                  Opinion of the Court                              7

        Plaintiff how much he had made with that entity in the last 24
        months. When Plaintiff answered, “Probably nothing,” the court
        pointed him to an earlier affidavit he had filed indicating that his
        employer was Thirteenth Dimension LLC, from whom he made
        $102.45 a week. Plaintiff responded that this affidavit entry meant
        that he had made $102.45 the week that the affidavit was filed,
        which was in February of 2022, not every week. Then, shifting
        again, Plaintiff added that the money didn’t come from a client or
        even apparently from Thirteenth Dimension, whom he had listed
        as his employer, but instead from his mom 6 for the help he gave
        her with her husband and his disability.
               The court then asked how much money Plaintiff receives
        from his mother, but Plaintiff was repeatedly evasive, stating that
        he didn’t know and would have to check his records. Finally, in
        response to the court’s question how much his mother had given
        him in the last three months, he estimated she had given him $400
        in the last three months, but said that she had now stopped giving
        him money. He couldn’t say how much she had given him all total
        in the last year, but thought it would be less than $400 every three
        months. Plaintiff also acknowledged that he lived with his mother
        in her home.

        6  The transcript indicates that Plaintiff said that the money came not from a
        client, but from “a” mom, We infer that the court heard him to say “my mom”
        because the court’s next question was how much money Plaintiff gets from
        his mother.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120        Document: 73-1        Date Filed: 08/31/2023        Page: 8 of 16

        8                         Opinion of the Court                     22-11120

               The district court next asked Plaintiff what had happened to
        the $75,000 Plaintiff had received as settlement proceeds from the
        underlying state court proceedings. Plaintiff said it was all gone,
        but was vague in explaining exactly where it had gone, stating, “I
        think I gave my mom and quite a few other people money,” before
        ultimately stating that he gave his mother $4,000, but providing no
        figure for the other gifts to unspecified persons that he had alleg-
        edly made.
                Plaintiff further estimated that he had spent $5,000 to buy
        office equipment, which he still owns. 7 He indicated that in the last
        two years he had spent an unspecified amount to purchase a Chev-
        rolet Camaro, but then traded that car in for a 2020 BMW X3. He
        testified, “I think I paid $15,000 or so as a down payment on the
        BMW.” He estimated that the BMW was currently worth $38,000,
        and an earlier affidavit stated that the loan amount was approxi-
        mately $33,000. 8
              In response to the court’s inquiry, Plaintiff also said he
        spends approximately eighty dollars per month on cigarettes and
        $500 every three months on postage.

        7 An expenditure that is seemingly at odds with Plaintiff’s other statements
        that he was unable to earn outside income because of his receipt of Social Se-
        curity disability funds and the conditional discharge of his student loan.
        8 When the hearing was recommenced after the court had found Plaintiff in
        contempt, Plaintiff indicated that the BMW had “almost 30” miles on it, which
        we infer to mean 30,000 miles.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120       Document: 73-1       Date Filed: 08/31/2023      Page: 9 of 16

        22-11120                Opinion of the Court                           9

               At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that even
        though Plaintiff had the ability to pay some of the sanctions
        amount ordered, if not all of the sanctions award, in the many
        months since entry of that sanctions order, he had paid “not one
        single dollar.” The court thus held Plaintiff in contempt and di-
        rected the Marshal to take Plaintiff into custody. The court in-
        formed Plaintiff that he could purge this contempt upon the pay-
        ment of $500, after which the court would issue a new order con-
        cerning future payment requirements.
                Plaintiff responded, “Where am I going to get the $500
        from?” As it turned out, Plaintiff was able to answer his own ques-
        tion, as he quickly found the means to pay the money. Specifically,
        less than an hour and a half later, Plaintiff was returned to the
        courtroom having paid that amount to the Marshal. According to
        the latter, upon being taken into custody, Plaintiff had told the Mar-
        shal that he had $400 cash in his car, as well as some credit cards. 9
        Ultimately, Plaintiff elected to pay the entire $500 amount via a
        credit card. Having purged his contempt per the Court’s directive
        to pay immediately $500, Plaintiff was released from custody.
               In a subsequent written order, the district court explained
        that given Plaintiff’s evasive, incomplete, and inconsistent answers
        when discussing his financial means, as well as his body language,

        9 Upon the recommencement of the hearing after having made this payment,
        Plaintiﬀ indicated that a person named Deborah Willard had recently given
        him $500 after he had helped her with her bankruptcy.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120     Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 10 of 16

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11120

        demeanor, pace, and tone, the court found Plaintiff not to be a
        credible witness. The court noted that:
               On multiple occasions, the Court had to ask the same
               question several times because O’Neal would give
               evasive or incomplete answers. Further, O’Neal’s
               tone, pace, demeanor, and body language caused the
               court to find that he was not being entirely truthful.
        As a result, the court did not “believe that O’Neal’s resources were
        as limited as he suggests.”
               Accordingly, the district court indicated that it found, by
        clear and convincing evidence, (1) that the December 4, 2020 Order
        at issue was valid, clear and unambiguous; (2) that Plaintiff failed
        to comply with that order when he failed to pay the sanctions;
        (3) that Plaintiff was given notice and an opportunity to be heard
        as to why he should not be held in contempt; (4) that Plaintiff was
        not a credible witness; and (5) that Plaintiff had the ability to pay
        the sanctions.
                Yet, as the order further stated, even though the court “be-
        lieves that [Plaintiff] has the ability to pay these sanctions immedi-
        ately and in full, out of an abundance of caution,” the court permit-
        ted him to pay the balance due in installments. Specifically, Plain-
        tiff was required to pay $250 every 60 days until satisfying the
        $6,000 balance.
               Plaintiff timely appealed the district court’s civil contempt
        order. This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal in part and allowed
        it to proceed in part. Specifically, we dismissed the part of the
USCA11 Case: 22-11120        Document: 73-1         Date Filed: 08/31/2023         Page: 11 of 16

        22-11120                   Opinion of the Court                               11

        appeal that challenged the validity of the original sanctions and per-
        manent injunction because those issues were decided in Plaintiff’s
        previous appeal. But we held that the appeal may proceed as to the
        district court’s order holding Plaintiff in civil contempt and modi-
        fying the monetary sanctions. We now consider that appeal.
                                       DISCUSSION
        I.      Waived Issues
                Because Plaintiff does not argue in his appellate brief that the
        district court erred by denying his request for counsel at the show
        cause hearing or that it erred by modifying the monetary sanctions,
        Plaintiff has waived any argument about these issues. See Timson
        v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that issues
        not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are abandoned). “A passing
        reference to an issue in a brief is not enough, and the failure to
        make arguments and cite authorities in support of an issue waives
        it.” Robinson v. Sauls, 46 F.4th 1332, 1341 n.6 (11th Cir. 2022) (quot-
        ing Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319
        (11th Cir. 2012). Nor do we address arguments raised for the first
        time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
              Regarding a right to counsel, Plaintiff made no arguments
        about this issue in his appellant brief. 10 In Plaintiff’s reply brief, he

        10 Although Plaintiff mentions the right to counsel in a few footnotes, the issue

        is nonetheless waived because Plaintiff presented no substantive argument on
        the issue. See Old W. Annuity & Life Ins. Co. v. Apollo Grp., 605 F.3d 856, 860
        n.1 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding an issue waived where the plaintiff mentioned it
        in a footnote but presented no substantive argument).
USCA11 Case: 22-11120      Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023      Page: 12 of 16

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11120

        mentioned his alleged right to counsel in a heading but he did not
        expand upon the argument. Regarding modification of the mone-
        tary sanctions, Plaintiff made a few passing references to this issue.
        However, rather than present any substantive argument on the is-
        sue, Plaintiff simply suggested that the district court’s modification
        of the monetary sanctions supports his argument that he could not
        comply with the Rule 11 sanctions order. We therefore address
        neither issue in this appeal. Thus, the only issue left on appeal is
        whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Plaintiff
        in civil contempt.
        II.    Civil Contempt
               A.     Standard of Review
                We review a district court’s civil contempt order for abuse
        of discretion. PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp., 939 F.3d 1205,
        1210 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing FTC v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221, 1231 (11th
        Cir. 2010)). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court makes a
        clear error of judgment, fails to follow the proper legal standard or
        process for making a determination, or relies on clearly erroneous
        findings of fact. Johnston v. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254, 1282 (11th Cir.
        2022). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous “when although there
        is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence
        is left with [a] definite and firm conviction that a mistake [was]
        committed.” Caplan v. All Am. Auto Collision, Inc., 36 F.4th 1083,
        1089 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470
        U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) de-
        mands even greater deference to a district court’s findings of fact
USCA11 Case: 22-11120     Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 13 of 16

        22-11120                Opinion of the Court                       13

        that are based on determinations about the credibility of witnesses.
        Reiterman v. Abid, 26 F.4th 1226, 1234–35 (11th Cir. 2022). This is
        because “only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in de-
        meanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s un-
        derstanding of and belief in what is said.” Id. (quoting Anderson,
        470 U.S. at 575).
              B.     Analysis
               The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
        Plaintiff in civil contempt. In a civil contempt proceeding, the
        moving party bears the initial burden of proving, by clear and con-
        vincing evidence, that the alleged contemnor violated the underly-
        ing court order at issue. Thomas v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass’n,
        594 F.3d 814, 821 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Chairs v. Burgess, 143 F.3d
        1432, 1436 (11th Cir. 1998).
               Once the moving party has made such a showing, the bur-
        den of production then shifts to the alleged contemnor to produce
        evidence providing a satisfactory reason for his noncompliance. Id.
        Two common explanations for noncompliance are that the con-
        temnor has not violated the order or that he was unable to comply.
        Chairs, 143 F.3d at 1436. Here, Plaintiff does not argue that he has
        not violated the order. Rather, he argues he should have been ex-
        cused from complying because he could not pay the monetary
        sanctions ordered by the district court.
                The mere assertion of an inability to comply with an order
        does not satisfy a contemnor’s burden of production to show an
        inability to comply. PlayNation, 939 F.3d at 1212; Chairs, 143 F.3d
USCA11 Case: 22-11120      Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 14 of 16

        14                     Opinion of the Court                  22-11120

        at 1436. Instead, a contemnor must demonstrate that he has made
        “in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.” PlayNation, 939
        F.3d at 1213 (internal quotation marks omitted). This requirement
        is construed strictly with an emphasis on the “all reasonable ef-
        forts” aspect of the analysis. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.
        Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1992).
        Finally, evasive and incomplete testimony does not satisfy the con-
        temnor’s burden of production. Id. at 1530 (citing United States v.
        Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988)).
                Turning to the current case, we find no error in the district
        court‘s conclusion that the Rule 11 sanctions order was lawful and
        valid. Indeed, we previously affirmed that order in our earlier de-
        cision. See O’Neal v. Allstate Indem. Ins. Co., No. 20-14712, 2021 WL
        4852222, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2021). And contrary to Plaintiff’s
        argument about new evidence, the district court reviewed Plain-
        tiff’s over 319-page filing and concluded that none of it constituted
        new evidence nor demonstrated that the court had subject-matter
        jurisdiction over the suit.
                In addition, the district court correctly concluded that the
        Rule 11 sanctions order was clear and unambiguous. Regarding
        the monetary sanctions, the order told Plaintiff the exact amount
        to pay each defendant. After this Court affirmed that order, the
        district court ordered Plaintiff to pay the monetary sanctions by a
        specified deadline. At the show cause hearing, Plaintiff acknowl-
        edged that the Rule 11 sanctions order was specific and told him
        the exact amount to pay each Defendant.
USCA11 Case: 22-11120      Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 15 of 16

        22-11120               Opinion of the Court                         15

                In short, the district did not err in concluding that a prima
        facie showing of contempt had been established based on Plaintiff’s
        non-compliance with a legal order directing him to pay monetary
        sanctions to those he had injured through his abusive and vexatious
        litigation. Nor do we find clear error in the district court’s finding
        that Plaintiff had failed to shoulder his burden to produce evidence
        that he was unable to comply with the court’s monetary sanction
        order. In so holding, the district court found Plaintiff not to be
        credible when he professed a lack of resources as the reason for his
        non-compliance, as the court found Plaintiff’s responses to be eva-
        sive, incomplete, and inconsistent.
                Plaintiff had received approximately $75,000 as a settlement
        for his automobile accident. Yet, he offered only the most vague,
        paltry, and uncorroborated assertions as to where that money had
        gone, justifying an inference that some of that money should be
        available to pay a portion, if not all, of his monetary sanctions. See
        Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d at 1530 (citing Roberts, 858
        F.2d at 701) (where a contemnor was ordered to disgorge all the
        2.8 million dollars he had received as a result of his fraudulent ac-
        tivities, testimony that he had spent 1.4 million dollars did not ad-
        equately explain where the rest of the money had gone).
               Further, Plaintiff admitted that he spent approximately $250
        a month on cigarettes and postage, received additional money
        from his mother, and owned a vehicle and office equipment worth
        thousands of dollars. Nevertheless, notwithstanding these admit-
        ted resources and even though he was well aware that a due date
USCA11 Case: 22-11120     Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 16 of 16

        16                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11120

        was looming for his payment of these sanctions, Plaintiff made no
        arrangements to pay even a partial amount of the money he owed.
               Yet, even though the district court believed that Plaintiff had
        the ability to pay the sanctions immediately and in full, it took a
        conservative approach and required that Plaintiff pay only $500 im-
        mediately, with the balance to be paid on installments of $250 a
        month. As noted, at a minimum, Plaintiff was already spending at
        least $250 monthly on optional expenses.
               For all the above reasons and based on the entire evidence,
        we are left with no definite and firm conviction that the district
        court made a mistake when it concluded that Plaintiff could com-
        ply with its order. As the district court did not abuse its discretion
        in finding Plaintiff in civil contempt, we AFFIRM.
                                  CONCLUSION
              For the reasons discussed above, the district court’s order
        holding Plaintiff in civil contempt is AFFIRMED.