Marshall v. Washington State Bar Association et al, No. 3:2011cv05319 - Document 99 (W.D. Wash. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER denying 87 Motion for Attorney Fees by Samuel Conti.(TD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Marshall v. Washington State Bar Association et al Doc. 99 1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 7 BRADLEY MARSHALL, Plaintiff, 8 v. For the Western District of Washington United States District Court 9 10 11 WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 15 I. ) Case No. CV-11-5319 SC ) ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Bradley Marshall ("Marshall") brought this action 16 pro se to challenge his disbarment by the Washington Supreme Court. 17 Marshall, an African-American, alleged that his disbarment was 18 motivated by racial prejudice on the part of the fifty-four 19 defendants in this action, including the Washington State Bar 20 Association ("WSBA") and several of its members (collectively, the 21 "WSBA Defendants"). 22 On May 23, 2012, the Court granted the WSBA Defendants' motion 23 for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Marshall's action with 24 prejudice. 25 Marshall's claims had been raised and rejected in a number of 26 previous actions and were therefore barred by res judicata and the 27 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 28 Marshall was a vexatious litigant and entered a "pre-filing order" ECF No. 79 ("May 23 Order"). Id. at 1-2. The Court found that The Court also found that Dockets.Justia.com 1 requiring him to seek leave of the Court before filing future 2 actions against the defendants in connection with his disbarment. 3 Id. at 27-29. Now the WSBA Defendants seek an order requiring Marshall to 4 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 7 is fully briefed. 8 finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. 9 United States District Court pay a portion of the WSBA Defendants' attorney fees as a sanction 6 For the Western District of Washington 5 As detailed below, the Court DENIES the motion. ECF No. 87 ("Atty Fees Mot."). ECF Nos. 91 ("Opp'n"), 96 ("Reply"). The motion The Court 10 11 II. BACKGROUND In its May 23 Order, the Court reviewed in detail Marshall's 12 13 previous attempts to challenge his disbarment. See May 23 Order at 14 3-11. 15 provide a comprehensive review of the procedural history here. 16 Suffice it to say that this action represents Marshall's fourth 17 attempt to challenge his disbarment from the practice of law in 18 Washington state. 19 before the Washington Supreme Court, Marshall argued that his due 20 process rights had been violated because of bias on the part of his 21 WSBA hearing officers. 22 proceedings were pending in Washington state court, Marshall filed 23 two unsuccessful collateral attacks in federal court, alleging 24 equal protection and due process violations in both proceedings. 25 Id. at 6-8. Both collateral attacks were dismissed with prejudice. 26 Id. at 7-9. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Marshall's 27 second collateral attack, characterizing it as vexatious and 28 wasteful. The Court assumes familiarity with that Order and will not Id. at 1. During his disbarment proceedings Id. at 4. While his disciplinary Marshall v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 448 Fed. Appx. 661, 2 1 663 (9th Cir. 2011). Marshall filed this action on April 22, 2011, after the Ninth 2 Id. at 9. 5 similar to the allegations set forth in his prior actions. 6 9-10. 7 action, Marshall alleged various ex parte communications among his 8 WSBA hearing officer, WSBA officials, and the justices of the 9 United States District Court Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his second collateral attack. 4 For the Western District of Washington 3 Washington Supreme Court during WSBA meetings. Marshall's allegations in this action are substantially However, there are some differences. Id. at For example, in this Id. at 10. 10 Further, Marshall asserted different causes of action this time 11 around, framing the defendants' alleged wrongdoing as employment 12 discrimination. 13 was the same as the others: Marshall sought damages and injunctive 14 relief in connection with his disciplinary proceedings. 15 Id. at 11. Nevertheless the goal of this action Id. The WSBA Defendants and the other defendants filed separate 16 motions for judgment on the pleadings on January 30, 2012. ECF 17 Nos. 52 ("WSBA MJP"), 53. 18 pleadings, the WSBA Defendants argued that Marshall's claims were 19 barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata, and collateral 20 estoppel, among other things. 21 Defendants requested that the Court dismiss Marshall's claims with 22 prejudice, declare Marshall a vexatious litigant, and enter a pre- 23 filing order requiring Marshall to seek leave of the court prior to 24 filing any additional actions in connection with his disbarment. 25 Id. at 43. 26 requested that the Court sanction Marshall under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 27 by requiring him to "'satisfy personally the excess costs, 28 expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred'" by the WSBA In their motion for judgment on the WSBA MJP at 14-32. The WSBA "In addition, (or as an alternative)," the WSBA 3 1 2 Defendants. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1927). The Court ultimately agreed that Marshall's claims were barred 3 by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata. Id. at 1-2. The 4 Court also granted the WSBA Defendants almost all of the relief 5 they sought. 6 declared Marshall a vexatious litigant, and entered a pre-filing 7 order against him. 8 the WSBA Defendants' request for attorney fees. The Court dismissed Marshall's claims with prejudice, Id. at 27-29. However, the Court did not grant United States District Court For the Western District of Washington 9 10 11 III. DISCUSSION The WSBA defendants now seek the attorney fees that the Court 12 declined to grant them in its May 23 Order. 13 again move under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which provides: 14 The WSBA Defendants 17 Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. 18 The award of § 1927 sanctions is "committed to the sound discretion 19 of the district court." 20 1985). 21 where there has been a finding of bad faith. 22 Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1528 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 "Bad faith is present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly 24 raises a frivolous argument, or argues a meritorious claim for the 25 purpose of harassing an opponent." 26 omitted). 15 16 27 28 In re Hunt, 754 F.2d 1290, 1294 (5th Cir. However, a district court may only award § 1927 sanctions W. Coast Theater Id. (internal quotations The WSBA Defendants argue that the award of § 1927 sanctions is appropriate because Marshall chose to file this action after his 4 dismissed with prejudice. 3 Defendants point out that the Ninth Circuit characterized 4 Marshall's last collateral attack as "vexatious and wasteful." 5 They also point out that the Court has already found that Marshall 6 is a vexatious litigant with respect to his disbarment proceedings. 7 Id. (citing May 23 Order at 27). 8 not be sanctioned for filing a civil rights complaint and, if 9 United States District Court two prior collateral attacks on his disbarment proceedings were 2 For the Western District of Washington 1 sanctions are awarded, they "will surely chill access to the Atty. Fees Mot. at 5. The WSBA Id. Marshall responds that he should 10 courts, particularly by those who are victims of racial 11 discrimination." 12 be sanctioned under § 1927 because he is no longer a lawyer and he 13 represented himself pro se. Opp'n at 5. Marshall also argues that he cannot Id. at 6. While § 1927 sanctions may be imposed on pro se litigants in 14 15 the Ninth Circuit, Wages v. Internal Revenue Serv., 915 F.2d 1230, 16 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990),1 the Court finds that they would be 17 inappropriate here. 18 vexatious litigant with respect to his disbarment proceedings. 19 However, such a finding does not automatically require the 20 imposition of sanctions. 21 this case, the narrowly tailored pre-filing order previously 22 entered against Marshall is sufficient. 23 Marshall, at least in part: Courts should be cautious about issuing 24 sanctions against plaintiffs who bring civil rights suits. 25 fact that Marshall previously filed two unsuccessful collateral The Court maintains that Marshall is a See In re Hunt, 754 F.2d at 1294. In The Court agrees with The 26 27 28 1 Other circuits have disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's position on this issue. See Sassower v. Field, 973 F.2d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that § 1927 sanctions may not be imposed against pro se litigants). 5 1 attacks to vindicate alleged civil rights violations does not 2 warrant the imposition of sanctions, even if those collateral 3 attacks were substantially similar to the instant action. 4 5 6 7 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES the WSBA Defendants' motion for attorney fees. 8 United States District Court For the Western District of Washington 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 Dated: July 20, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
