Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon

Background

Matthew J. Fecteau, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Mount Vernon, several individual defendants identified as the City Defendants, and Charlene Humphreys. The pending motion concerned a supplemental declaration that the City Defendants submitted in support of their opposition to Fecteau’s motion for judicial notice.

Fecteau asked the court to strike the declaration, exclude alleged hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802, apply the Younger abstention doctrine to references to state proceedings, and impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The City Defendants opposed the motion and argued that their declaration addressed concerns about Fecteau’s communications, including a postcard sent to the Mount Vernon Law Department.

Motion to Strike

The court denied the request to strike the supplemental declaration. Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike certain material from a pleading, such as an insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court explained that a declaration is not a pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so Rule 12(f) did not authorize striking it.

Hearsay

The court also denied Fecteau’s request to exclude the declaration as hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts. The court found that the statements in the declaration were offered to show the effect of Fecteau’s communications on Mount Vernon Law Department employees’ state of mind and to describe repeated conduct, rather than to prove whether Fecteau and the employees were friends. The court also concluded that the declaration permissibly characterized attached documents and noted that the court had not relied on the City Defendants’ characterization of the postcard in deciding the pending motions.

Younger Abstention

Fecteau asked the court to use the Younger abstention doctrine to bar references to state proceedings. Younger abstention is a rule that generally limits federal-court intervention in certain ongoing state proceedings. The court denied this request because the doctrine did not apply to the single supplemental declaration that Fecteau sought to exclude. The court also observed that Younger generally concerns claims for injunctive or declaratory relief, while courts generally may continue to exercise jurisdiction over claims seeking monetary damages under § 1983. The court further stated that Fecteau’s equitable claims did not seek to stop the state prosecution and would likely not be subject to Younger abstention.

Sanctions

The court denied sanctions under Rule 11. It found that the City Defendants had not acted objectively unreasonably in seeking protection from what they described as intimidating, harassing, and threatening communications. The court also found that the allegations were factually supported. In addition, Rule 11’s safe-harbor procedure gives an alleged violator 21 days to withdraw or correct the challenged filing, and the court found that Fecteau had not followed that procedure.

The court separately denied sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. That statute can require an attorney to pay excess costs, expenses, and attorney fees caused by unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying court proceedings. The court found no clear evidence that the City Defendants’ claims were entirely meritless or that their attorneys acted for an improper purpose. It concluded that the supplemental declaration did not unreasonably or vexatiously multiply the proceedings.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied Fecteau’s motion to strike and for sanctions in its entirety and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The order addressed the motion and did not decide the underlying § 1983 claims.