Barry Harris v. Alessia Moore, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Barry Harris’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court found no sanctionable conduct concerning an erroneous conviction entry, declarations regarding mental health coursework, or disclosure of medical information, and also found no basis for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court’s inherent authority. Defendants were ordered to correct the incorrect conviction reference in the plaintiff’s Information Summary.

Holdings

1. Rule 11 sanctions were not warranted because the erroneous conviction entry was a historical error made years earlier, was not shown to result from unreasonable conduct or an improper purpose by defendants or counsel, and was not relied upon for any purpose before the court.
2. Rule 11 sanctions were not warranted because the challenged declaration addressed plaintiff's failure to complete anger-and-aggression step-down coursework, not a claim that plaintiff had never completed any phase of mental-health treatment, and plaintiff did not refute the declaration's actual statements.
3. Rule 11 sanctions were not warranted because plaintiff did not show that the medical information referenced by defendants was false or factually unsupported, and plaintiff had already placed the medical issues before the court.
4. Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 were not appropriate because the record did not show subjective bad faith, such as knowingly or recklessly advancing a frivolous argument or pursuing a meritorious claim to harass an opponent.
5. Sanctions under the court's inherent authority were not warranted because plaintiff offered no evidence of willful disobedience, bad faith, vexatiousness, wantonness, or oppressive conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants or their counsel violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by submitting an erroneous conviction reference, allegedly false statements concerning plaintiff's mental-health coursework, or medical information.
2. Whether sanctions were warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 based on the challenged filings.
3. Whether sanctions were warranted under the court's inherent authority.

Disposition

other