Winns v. DeJoy
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-04264
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Winns v. DeJoy, Judge Demarchi denied Winns’s terminating-sanctions motion, without prejudice to presenting supporting evidence later.
The ruling affected pro se plaintiff Harris L. Winns’s request for terminating sanctions in his employment-discrimination case against Louis DeJoy. The court denied the request but stated that Winns could present supporting evidence at the appropriate stage of the litigation.
What happened
In Winns v. DeJoy, pro se plaintiff Harris L. Winns alleged employment discrimination by the United States Postal Service. He asked the court to impose terminating sanctions based on claims that the defendant had misled the court and to enter judgment in his favor.
Winns pointed to alleged inaccuracies in the administrative record, alleged fabricated evidence, and the way defense documents were signed. The defendant opposed the motion. The court found nothing improper about a legal assistant signing a certificate of service.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied the motion. She ruled that Winns had not shown the misrepresentations or other misconduct needed for sanctions under the federal filing rule or the court’s inherent authority. The ruling did not prevent him from presenting evidence supporting his claims at the appropriate stage, such as summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Winns v. DeJoy · No. 5:21-cv-04264
- Virginia Demarchi
- June 22, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Harris L. Winns brought an employment-discrimination action involving the United States Postal Service. He moved for “terminating sanctions” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the court’s inherent authority. Terminating sanctions are sanctions that can end a case or result in judgment for one side. Winns sought judgment in his favor on the merits, arguing that the defendant had perpetrated a fraud on the court. The defendant opposed the motion.
Legal standards
Rule 11 requires an attorney or unrepresented party submitting a pleading, motion, or other paper to certify, after a reasonable inquiry, that it is not submitted for an improper purpose, that its legal arguments are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law, and that its factual assertions have evidentiary support or are reasonably based on available information. If the court finds a violation after notice and an opportunity to respond, it may impose an appropriate sanction.
The court also explained that its inherent authority to manage cases permits sanctions when it specifically finds bad faith or conduct equivalent to bad faith. Under the cited Ninth Circuit standard, recklessness may support sanctions when combined with another factor, such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Winns had not shown that sanctions were warranted under Rule 11 or the court’s inherent authority. It also found that he had not established that sanctions could properly be imposed under Rules 9 or 60 or under the California Penal Code provisions he cited.
Winns argued that defense counsel had not properly signed documents submitted to the court. The court found nothing improper about a legal assistant signing a certificate of service. Winns also argued that a document in the underlying administrative record contained factual inaccuracies and that other documents showed the Postal Service fabricated evidence when it terminated his employment. The court stated that these materials might be evidence supporting his employment-discrimination claims, but they did not establish that the defendant made misrepresentations or material misstatements in papers presented to the court.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Winns’s motion for “terminating sanctions.” The ruling was without prejudice to Winns presenting evidence he believed supported his claims at the appropriate stage of the litigation, including at summary judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.