IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60326
Summary Calendar
PATTY YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELIZABETH VINSON; ET AL.,
Defendants,
ELIZABETH VINSON; CITY OF OLIVE BRANCH; SAMUEL P. RIKARD, Mayor,
City of Olive Branch; GEORGE COLLINS, Alderman, City of Olive
Branch; AUBREY COLEMAN, Alderman, City of Olive Branch; STEVE
DAWSON, Alderman, City of Olive Branch; RICHARD E. DLUGACH,
Alderman, City of Olive Branch; GEORGE HARRISON, Alderman, City
of Olive Branch; OLIVE BRANCH POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIM HARRIS,
Chief of Police, City of Olive Branch; CLEATUS OLIVER, Detective,
City of Olive Branch; SCOTT GENTRY, Officer, City of Olive Branch
Police Department; LES SHUMAKE, Municipal Court Judge, City of
Olive Branch; WALLACE ANDERSON, Prosecutor, City of Olive Branch;
BILLY W. BALDWIN, Deputy Clerk, City of Olive Branch; MISSISSIPPI
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY PLAN INSURANCE; JOHN DOES, Defendants and
others to be joined after discovery, et al.; JENNIFER CARSON,
Municipal Court Clerk,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Consolidated with
__________________
No. 00-60407
Summary Calendar
__________________
PATTY YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
ELIZABETH VINSON; ET AL.,
No. 00-60326
c/w No. 00-60407
-2-
Defendants,
CITY OF OLIVE BRANCH; SAMUEL P. RIKARD, Mayor, City of Olive
Branch; GEORGE COLLINS, Alderman, City of Olive Branch; AUBREY
COLEMAN; Alderman, City of Olive Branch; STEVE DAWSON, Alderman,
City of Olive Branch; RICHARD E. DLUGACH, Alderman, City of Olive
Branch; GEORGE HARRISON, Alderman, City of Olive Branch; OLIVE
BRANCH POLICE DEPARTMENT; JIM HARRIS, Detective, City of Olive
Branch; SCOTT GENTRY, Officer, City of Olive Branch Police
Department, LES SHUMAKE, Municipal Court Judge, City of Olive
Branch; WALLACE ANDERSON, Prosecutor, City of Olive Branch; BILLY
W. BALDWIN, Deputy Clerk, City of Olive Branch; MISSISSIPPI
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY PLAN INSURANCE; JENNIFER CARSON, Municipal
Court Clerk,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:99-CV-55-B-A
--------------------
May 21, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Patty Young challenges the district court’s
dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a
claim. Young argues that the district court erred because her
complaint did state a claim for which relief could be granted.
With respect to the individual defendant, Elizabeth
Vinson, Young’s complaint does not contain any specific facts that
would support her allegation that Vinson acted in concert with the
remaining defendants to deny Young’s constitutional rights.
Accordingly, Young’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Elizabeth
Vinson was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. See
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-60326
c/w No. 00-60407
-3-
Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir.
1994).
In her complaint, Young sued each of the remaining
defendants in their official capacities. Officials acting in their
official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 71 (1989). Therefore, Young’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
these remaining defendants were properly dismissed for failure to
state a claim. See Tuchman, 14 F.3d at 1067. We also agree with
the district court that appellant’s vague and rambling complaint
states no constitutional violation against the municipal defendants
or the City of Olive Branch.
Young also challenges the district court’s sua
sponte imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This court reviews the
imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion. See Riley v.
City of Jackson, 99 F.3d 757, 759 (5th Cir. 1996). When sanctions
stem from a sua sponte Rule 11(c)(1)(B) decision, the district
court is required to afford the party notice describing the
offending conduct and allow him an opportunity to show cause why
sanctions should not be imposed. Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d
710, 722 (5th Cir. 1999).
In this instance, in ruling on the appellees’ motions to
dismiss, the district court found that Young’s complaint was
frivolous and intended to harass the litigants. In its order
dismissing Young’s complaint, the district court ordered that Rule
11 sanctions be imposed against Young. Young was allowed an
No. 00-60326
c/w No. 00-60407
-4-
opportunity to respond to defense counsel’s submission of fee
itemizations but was never given advance notice of her perceived
Rule 11 violations and an opportunity to respond thereto. The
imposition of Rule 11(c)(1)(B) sanctions without notice and a
hearing constitutes an abuse of discretion by the district court.
See Goldin, 166 F.3d at 722. We vacate the district court’s
sanction order and remand this case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; ALL
OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.