Bell v. Young et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHANE DOUGLAS BELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DARIN YOUNG, WARDEN,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; JENNIFER DREISKE,
DEPUTY WARDEN, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SETH HUGHES,
UNIT COORDINATOR, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DENNIS
KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF
CORRECTIONS, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BOB DOOLEY,
DIRECTOR OF PRISON OPERATIONS,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; CRAIG MOUSEL,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND SCO MOISAN,
SENIOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY;
Defendants.
4:16-CV-04046-VLD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
DOCKET NO. 180
INTRODUCTION
This matter was before the court on plaintiff Shane Bell’s pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	See Docket No. 1. 	The Honorable
Lawrence L. Piersol appointed Mr. Bell counsel and an amended complaint was
filed by counsel on Mr. Bell’s behalf. 	See Docket Nos. 83, 89. 	The case was
transferred to the undersigned magistrate judge on the consent of the parties
and the parties settled all claims in this matter and moved to dismiss the case
Case 4:16-cv-04046-VLD Document 181 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

2
with prejudice. 	See Docket Nos. 102, 140. 	The motion to dismiss was granted
on February 5, 2019. 	See Docket No. 141.
On October 1, 2019, Mr. Bell filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement and this court granted in part and denied in part the motion. 	See
Docket Nos. 143, 149. 	With that order, this court directed “that the
department at the South Dakota State Penitentiary which handles garnishment
of prisoners’ accounts for payment of filing fees to this court should be
provided with a copy of this order concerning Mr. Bell’s responsibility for the
$98.68 balance remaining on his 2014 civil case filing fee.” 	See Docket
No. 149, p. 9.
Now pending is Mr. Bell’s pro se motion requesting Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 sanctions against defendants for “ignoring [this] court[s] order of
October 31st, 2019.” 	See Docket No. 180. 	Mr. Bell’s motion raises one issue:
are defendants “still taking Court cost fees that have already been paid [in
retaliation] when only $96.98 was owed and already paid.” 	Id.
DISCUSSION
A. 	Whether Sanctions are an Appropriate Remedy
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) provides that “[i]f, after notice and a
reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has
been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney,
law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” 	See
FED. R. C IV. P. 11( C)(1). “A motion for sanctions must be made separately from
any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates
Case 4:16-cv-04046-VLD Document 181 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Rule 11(b).” 	FED. R. C IV. P. 11( C)(2). “On its own, the court may order an
attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in
the order has not violated Rule 11(b).” 	FED. R. CIV. P. 11( C)(3).
“[T]he district court possesses inherent power ‘to manage [its] own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’ ”
Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1077 (8th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). 	These
“inherent powers include the ability to supervise and discipline attorneys
who appear before it and discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction
for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” 	Id. (quoting Wescott
Agri-Prods., Inc. v. Sterling State Bank, Inc., 682 F.3d 1091, 1095 (8th
Cir. 2012)). 	“ ‘[T]he primary purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to deter
attorney and litigant misconduct, not to compensate the opposing party
for all of its costs in defending.’ ” 	Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733,
747 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Kirk Capital Corp. v. Bailey, 16 F.3d 1485,
1490 (8th Cir. 1994)). 	On this record, there is no indication of any
misconduct on defendants’ part.
District of South Dakota Local Rule 83.5(a)(1) states that, “except in
seaman’s suits, any party commencing any civil action, suit, or proceedings,
whether by original process, removal, or otherwise, must pay to the clerk of
court the statutory filing fee before the case will be filed and process issued
thereon.” 	See D.S.D. CIV. L.R. 83.5(A)(1). 	The “statutory filing fee” is
promulgated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 	This statute directs “[t]he clerk of each
Case 4:16-cv-04046-VLD Document 181 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

4
district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or
proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to
pay a filing fee of $350.” 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
Mr. Bell asserts defendants are “taking money from [him] for court costs
[he] already paid” in retaliation and that he was only ordered to pay $96.68 for
the filing fees associated with his 2014 lawsuit1 . 	Docket No. 180, p. 1.
Mr. Bell is correct in that this court ordered him to pay the remaining $96.68
balance of filing fees associated with his 2014 case. 	However, this did not
excuse him from paying the filing fees associated with his 2021 § 1983 action2 .
According to court payment records, Mr. Bell paid the remaining balance
of $96.68 for his 2014 case on January 20, 2022, or the same day he filed this
motion. 	Also on this day, Mr. Bell paid $38.52 and $190.00 towards the filing
fee associated with his 2021 §1983 action. 	At this time, $121.48 of filing fees
were still owed, which ultimately were paid on February 10, 2022.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) governs lawsuits like the
present one filed by Mr. Bell. 	According to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “any court of
the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of
any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without
prepayment” of the $350 filing fee. 	But civil plaintiffs are required to pay the
filing fee eventually. 	Id.
1 See Bell v. Voight, 4:14-cv-04111-LLP (D.S.D.)
2 See Bell v. Young et. al., 4:21-cv-04134-LLP (D.S.D)
Case 4:16-cv-04046-VLD Document 181 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

5
Mr. Bell filed his new § 1983 action on August 2, 2021. 	Up until the
point of filing his motion for sanctions on January 20, 2022, Mr. Bell had not
paid any money towards the $350 filing fee now owed. 	Thus, when the prison
informed Mr. Bell he owed over $300, it was not in retaliation, but rather
informing him that he owed money on his new federal lawsuit. 	Therefore,
FED. R. CIV. P. 11 sanctions would be inappropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing law, facts, and analysis, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Mr. Bell’s motion for sanctions [Docket No. 180] is DENIED.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:16-cv-04046-VLD Document 181 Filed 05/03/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>