Randal N. Wiideman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Juan P. Ignacio, Individually, Defendant-appellee, 999 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 999 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1993) Submitted July 6, 1993. *Decided July 13, 1993

Before TANG, POOLE and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Randal N. Wiideman, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order imposing a $200.00 sanction against him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In this consolidated action, Wiideman alleged that certain prison officials had embezzled money and killed a former prison employee. Additionally, Wiideman also submitted a forged document from a United States federal government agency. We review the district court's imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1365-66 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

Rule 11 provides that an unrepresented party shall sign all papers filed with the court to certify that "to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry [the party's pleading] is well grounded in fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants as well as to attorneys and parties represented by attorneys. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enter., 111 S. Ct. 922, 930 (1991). Sanctions must be imposed on the signer if the filing is "frivolous." Townsend, 929 F.2d at 1362. We define a frivolous filing as one "that is both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry." Id.

Here, Wiideman alleged that defendants killed a former prison employee. Additionally, he submitted a forged document from a United States federal government agency. We agree with the district court that there is nothing in the record to indicate that Wiideman made a reasonable or competent inquiry prior to making his allegations and submitting his exhibits. Moreover, because Wiideman's allegation of murder is baseless, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on Wiideman. See id. at 1365-66.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.