United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 95-5294
Non-Argument Calendar.
Robert ATTWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Harry SINGLETARY, Defendant,
Robert Smith, Dr., Tomlini, Captain, Tim Stanford, Captain,
Suarez, Officer, S. Freeman, Officer, Sampson, Officer, C.
Williams, Sgt., Otano, Officer, Javier Garcia, Defendants-
Appellees.
Feb. 11, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. (No. 94-2302-CIV-DLG), Donald L. Graham,
Judge.
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and KRAVITCH,
Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Robert Attwood appeals the district court's
dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights claims, brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the imposition of Rule 11
sanctions. We affirm for the reasons stated below.
FACTS
On November 8, 1994, Attwood filed a claim in the Southern
District of Florida pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for physical
injuries and willful deprivation of proper medical care against
various correctional officers and medical professionals. Attwood
also moved to proceed as an indigent plaintiff in order to avoid
liability for court fees and costs. Attwood filed an affidavit
attesting that he had no access to, control over, or income from
any bank account since 1991, and that he owned no real estate or
other valuable property. Defendants Singletary, Tomlini, Suarez
and Otano filed a motion to dismiss under the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. On August
14, 1995, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation.
The report concluded that Attwood intentionally misstated his
income to obtain indigent status and filed this claim in bad faith.
The district court accepted the findings of the magistrate judge
and dismissed the case against all defendants with prejudice on
September 29, 1995, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Attwood is no stranger to the federal civil judicial system.
The magistrate judge's report detailed Attwood's previous
litigation in the district courts of this circuit. Attwood has
filed at least sixty-one claims in the District Court for the
Southern District of Florida alone. He has been equally litigious
in the Northern District of Florida. Attwood regularly brings
suits under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the same factual
grounds, changing only the venue or the names of the defendants.
In a recent case filed in the Northern District of Florida,
Attwood v. Singletary, No. 92-40425-WS, Attwood sued numerous
correctional officers and health care employees of the Department
of Corrections, claiming that these defendants continuously
violated Attwood's constitutional rights. On October 1 and October
7, 1993, the magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the
*
merits of Attwood's motion for a preliminary injunction. In an
exhaustive and detailed thirty-four page report, the magistrate
judge individually examined Attwood's numerous claims for
deprivation of medical care, denial of judicial access and
retaliation. The report concluded that Attwood's claims "had no
reasonable basis in fact" and recommended that the district court
impose Rule 11 sanctions because Attwood deliberately deceived the
court and filed objectively unreasonable claims.
The magistrate judge assessed the veracity of Attwood's in
forma pauperis affidavit with equal diligence. The report
recommended that the district court dismiss the claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), finding that Attwood deliberately filed a
false application to proceed as an indigent plaintiff. The
magistrate judge's report also concluded that Attwood's actions
were "manipulative and designed to further his abusive
litigiousness" and recommended that Attwood be enjoined from filing
any future suit in any other court that did not comply with the
provisions of Rule 11. The magistrate judge issued his report and
recommendation on October 25, 1993. On February 18, 1994, the
district court adopted and incorporated the report and
recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Subsequent to his filing in the Northern District, Attwood
filed similar claims in the Southern District of Florida pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Attwood v. Navarro, No. 92-6819. Attwood
*
The magistrate judge consolidated all forty suits brought
in the Northern District because the factual bases were similar
and because Attwood sought a preliminary injunction in each case.
also filed a motion and an affidavit in support of his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. In a report issued on July 12, 1995,
the district court recommended dismissal with prejudice of Navarro
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d), finding that Attwood filed a false affidavit in support of
his indigent plaintiff status and had engaged in a pattern of bad
faith litigation.
DISCUSSION
This court reviews sanctions imposed pursuant to Rule 11 or
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v.
Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2460-61, 110
L.Ed.2d 359 (1990); Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 741 (11th
Cir.1987). A district court ruling based on an erroneous
interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous reading of the
evidence would constitute an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell,
496 U.S. at 405, 110 S.Ct. at 2460-61.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) provides in part:
By presenting to the court ... a pleading, written motion, or
other paper, an ... unrepresented party is certifying that to
the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, —
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose,
such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or
needless increase in the cost of litigation;
....
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have
evidentiary support....
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). Under the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, a party
is responsible for reaffirming all contentions in papers filed
before the court and informing the court of any changes of
circumstances that would render a contention meritless.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 advisory committee's note. Rule 11 sanctions are
proper "when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable
factual basis" and "when the party files a pleading in bad faith
for an improper purpose." Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465,
1514 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 855, 112 S.Ct. 167, 116
L.Ed.2d 131 (1991).
The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ensures that
indigent persons will have equal access to the judicial system.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921-22,
8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). This court has noted, however, that "[t]he
pauper's affidavit should not be a broad highway into the federal
courts." Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir.1984).
The statute provides that a court "may dismiss the case if the
allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is
frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1996). The purpose
of this provision is to "weed out the litigants who falsely
understate their net worth in order to obtain in forma pauperis
status when they are not entitled to that status based on their
true net worth." Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 881 (11th
Cir.1990). A finding that the plaintiff engaged in bad faith
litigiousness or manipulative tactics warrants dismissal. Camp v.
Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 438 (11th Cir.1986).
We find that the district court properly imposed sanctions
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in light of Attwood's false claims
of indigency and his history of abusing the judicial process. See
Camp, 798 F.2d at 438. Attwood filed his motion to proceed as an
indigent plaintiff less than nine months after the District Court
for the Northern District of Florida dismissed Attwood's claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Attwood's affidavit stated that he had
no access to a bank account since 1991 and owned no real property.
These statements are in direct contrast to the credible findings of
the magistrate judge in this case and the findings of the district
court in the Northern District of Florida. The more recent case of
Attwood v. Navarro, No. 92-6819, is also telling. Attwood contends
that he believed the information truthful at the time of filing.
Even if this court accepted Attwood's contentions as true, Rule 11
requires Attwood to make reasonable inquiries into the veracity of
information filed before the court and to advise the court of any
changes. Contrary to Attwood's assertion, his obligations under
Rule 11 are not measured solely at the time of filing. See Turner
v. Sungard Business Systems, Inc., 91 F.3d 1418 (11th Cir.1996).
Furthermore, this court has upheld dismissal where a plaintiff
deliberately failed to advise the court of a prior determination
that the plaintiff was not indigent. Dawson v. Lennon, 797 F.2d
934 (11th Cir.1986).
Due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond if
Rule 11 sanctions are imposed. Didie v. Howes, 988 F.2d 1097, 1105
n. 8 (11th Cir.1993). Attwood argues that the court failed to
provide a hearing to determine whether he falsely stated his
financial status. The District Court for the Northern District of
Florida held a two-day hearing on Attwood's financial status almost
one year before Attwood filed this suit and found Attwood not
indigent. The district court in the Northern District also
enjoined Attwood from filing any future suit that did not comply
with Rule 11. Attwood knew of the consequences resulting from
filing a false affidavit in bad faith. His actions show a history
of bad faith litigiousness and deceit. We therefore conclude that
the district court properly dismissed the case and imposed
sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.