Nordlund v. Eubank et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DAVID C. NORDLUND,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOMINICK EUBANK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00085-JMK
ORDER
On April 6, 2021, David C. Nordlund, a self-represented prisoner, filed a
Motion.1 At Docket 35, Mr. Nordlund requests the Court impose Rule 11 sanctions
against Defendants’ counsel and award Mr. Nordlund attorney fees. Mr. Nordlund
alleges that Defendants’ counsel incorrectly asserts the dates she served the
Answer upon him. 	The delay in his receipt of the Answer caused him to file a
meritless motion for default, and therefore, Defendants’ counsel has violated
Rule 11(b) of Federal Civil Procedure. 	The Court addresses the Motion sua
sponte.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) states:
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE C OURT . By presenting to
the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—
whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the
best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief,
1 Docket 35.
Case 3:20-cv-00085-JMK Document 36 Filed 04/13/21 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:20-cv-00085-JMK, Nordlund v. Eubank, et al.
Order
Page 2 of 4
formed 	after 	an 	inquiry 	reasonable 	under 	the
circumstances:
(1) it 	is 	not 	being 	presented 	for 	any 	improper
purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the 	claims, 	defenses, 	and 	other 	legal
contentions 	are 	warranted 	by 	existing 	law 	or 	by 	a
nonfrivolous 	argument 	for 	extending, 	modifying, 	or
reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the 	factual 	contentions 	have 	evidentiary
support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted
on 	the 	evidence 	or, 	if 	specifically 	so 	identified, 	are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Rule 11(c) of Federal Civil Procedure governs violations of Rule 11(b), and in short,
permits a Court to impose appropriate sanctions upon a party. 	Local Civil
Rule 11.2 further governs the imposition of sanctions permitting the Court to
impose fines, fees, and costs; establishment and preclusion orders; default;
dismissal, and other sanctions as appropriate.
Rule 11’s “central purpose” is “to deter baseless filings in district court” and
“streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts.”2 	Moreover,
Rule 11 concerns whether a party “has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what
sanction would be appropriate.”3 	Courts look with disfavor on a party’s use of
2 Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990).
3 Id. at 396.
Case 3:20-cv-00085-JMK Document 36 Filed 04/13/21 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:20-cv-00085-JMK, Nordlund v. Eubank, et al.
Order
Page 3 of 4
Rule 11 as a combative tool.4 A Rule 11 sanction is “an extraordinary remedy, one
to be exercised with extreme caution.”5
An answer to a complaint is a defendant’s opportunity to respond to the
plaintiff’s allegations.6 An answer is required to “state in short and plain terms its
defenses to each claim,” “admit or deny the allegations against it by an opposing
party,” and raise any affirmative defenses.7 	A plaintiff does not respond to an
answer, unless a counterclaim is made or a reply is ordered by the Court.8
Here, Mr. Nordlund argues that delay in receiving a copy of Defendants’
Answer caused him to file meritless motions and has unnecessarily delayed
litigation by 38 days.9 	Defendants filed an Answer with the Court on January 25,
2021.10 	The Answer contained a certificate of service stating a copy was mailed
to 	Mr. 	Nordlund.11 	Upon 	notice 	it 	was 	not 	received, 	Defendants 	resent
Mr. Nordlund the Answer on February 19, 2021, which he received on March 4,
4 Autrey v. United States, 889 F.2d 973, 986, n.20 (11th Cir. 1989).
5 Lee v. POW! Ent., Inc., 468 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1230 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (citing
Operating Eng’r Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988).
6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7–8.
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)–(c).
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).
9 See Docket 35.
10 Docket 27.
11 Docket 27.
Case 3:20-cv-00085-JMK Document 36 Filed 04/13/21 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:20-cv-00085-JMK, Nordlund v. Eubank, et al.
Order
Page 4 of 4
2021.12 	The Court experienced no delay in receiving and reviewing the Answer,
and it promptly issued a Scheduling and Planning Order.13 	No actual delay in
litigation has occurred. 	Additionally, self-represented litigants are not entitled to
attorney’s fees in civil rights actions.14
Rule 11 of Federal Civil Procedure enforces ethical standards of litigation for
attorneys and self-represented parties, alike. The Court will not entertain baseless
motions or “gotcha” attempts during this litigation. 	This is the fourth meritless
motion filed by Mr. Nordlund in fewer than 30 days. Further motions on the issue
of the delayed service of the Answer are not well-taken and may be denied as a
matter of course in the future. 	Should Mr. Nordlund continue to pursue these
litigation tactics, he may find himself running afoul of Rule 11(b).
The Motion at Docket 35 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2021 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 See Dockets 30, 35.
13 Docket 28.
14 Ramirez v. Guinn, 271 F. App’x 574, 576 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating “pro se civil rights
litigants are not entitled to attorney[’]s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988”).
Case 3:20-cv-00085-JMK Document 36 Filed 04/13/21 Page 4 of 4