Summary
This memorandum opinion and order denies a pro se plaintiff's motion seeking sanctions against defense counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court's inherent authority. The magistrate judge outlines the plaintiff's obligation to properly serve the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within 90 days of paying the filing fee. The court concludes that the plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or reckless disregard by counsel necessary to justify punitive sanctions, especially since the named defendants have not yet appeared or been formally served.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may impose 28 U.S.C. §1927 sanctions against counsel for defendants who have not appeared in the action and whose alleged conduct relates to service of process.
- Whether the plaintiff satisfied the heightened burden to show that the attorney’s conduct was both unreasonable and vexatious.
Holdings
- The motion for sanctions is denied because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the attorney’s conduct was unreasonable and vexatious as required by §1927.
Key quotations
“As this Court has previously explained, [a] court may impose sanctions against “[a]ny attorney ... who ... multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously” in the form of “excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927.” (*1)
“Section 1927 sanctions “should be employed only in instances evidencing a serious and standard disregard for the orderly process of justice, lest the legitimate zeal of an attorney in representing [a] client [be] dampened.”” (*2)
Factual background
Plaintiff Corey Ray Diggs filed a complaint and paid the filing fee on June 16, 2025. He attempted service of the Second Amended Complaint on the defendants through their registered agent, but the agent refused service. Defendant counsel, Carrie Hoffman, acknowledged communications but did not file a notice of appearance. Diggs moved for sanctions against the defendants' attorney, alleging improper conduct in the service process.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a civil rights action on May 27, 2025. The court referred the case to a magistrate judge for pre‑trial management. Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927 on July 15, 2025. The magistrate judge denied the motion.