Nichols v. Ally Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CRAIG NICHOLS, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-cv-00526-SEP
)
ALLY BANK, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Craig Nichols, Jr.’s Response to the Court’s
Order to Show Cause dated February 27, 2026. 	Doc. [8]. 	For the following reasons, the Court
strikes from the record Plaintiff’s Motion for Return of Repossessed Vehicle and Damages as a
sanction for violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).
In its Show Cause Order, the Court noted several inaccuracies, fabrications, and
deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Motion and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Motion should not
be stricken from the record for violation of Federal Rule 11. 	See Doc. [7]. 	Plaintiff responded
to the Show Cause Order a week past the deadline without seeking leave of court.1 	In his
response, Plaintiff states that he did not intend for the Motion to mislead the Court or present
inaccurate legal authority, citation errors, and placeholder text. 	Doc. [8] at 1. 	He blames his
lack of legal training and his belief in learning through experience.
Plaintiff’s lack of legal training does not excuse many of the facial deficiencies in the
Motion, such as his reference to non-existent “attached evidentiary submissions,” “filed
documentation,” and “attached payment records.” 	Doc. [5] at 1-2. 	Nor does a lack of legal
training excuse such nonsensical allegations as that Defendant Ally Bank worked “with state
actors” and “violated Plaintiff’s . . . Sixth Amendment right to confront accusers regarding the
underlying arrest warrant.” 	Id. at 2. 	And nothing more than common sense was necessary for
Plaintiff to discern that the Motion was not “a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Independence (circa 1776),” as he attested it was. 	Id. at 4.
1 In the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court will sua sponte grant Plaintiff leave to file his response
out of time.
Case: 4:25-cv-00526-SEP Doc. #: 9 Filed: 03/31/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff need not have acted in bad faith to trigger a Rule 11 violation. 	See Adduono v.
World Hockey Ass’n, 824 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir. 1987) (“The revised rule changes the standard
from a subjective good faith standard to an objective standard.”). 	“There is no pro se exception
to Rule 11(b).” 	Turnage v. Associated Bank, N.A., 2025 WL 3052638, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 12,
2025), aff'd summarily, 25-3092 (8th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025). 	And the Court has “broad discretion
in the choice of sanctions.” 	Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 747 (8th Cir. 2018). 	The
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion contains allegations and factual contentions that lack
evidentiary support in violation of Rule 11. 	To deter the repetition of Plaintiff’s conduct, the
Court will strike from the record his Motion for Return of Repossessed Vehicle and Damages as
a sanction for violation of Rule 11.2 	See FED. R. C IV. P. 11(c)(4).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Return of Repossessed Vehicle
and Damages, Doc. [5], is STRICKEN from the record.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2026.
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 This sanction aligns with other sanctions in this district for similar conduct. 	See, e.g., Mills v. City of
St. Louis, 2026 WL 251781, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2026) (dismissing claims with prejudice).
Case: 4:25-cv-00526-SEP Doc. #: 9 Filed: 03/31/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>