Francis v. Eversole, No. 2:2020cv02220 - Document 41 (W.D. Ark. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 40 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on October 14, 2022. (jlm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Francis v. Eversole Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION LUKE BRADLEY FRANCIS v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:20-CV-2220 DONALD EVERSOLE DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a motion for sanctions filed by Plaintiff Luke Bradley Francis, styled as a “verified motion regarding sufficiency of answer and for sanctions” (Doc. 40). Mr. Francis’s motion concerns Defendant Donald Eversole’s responses to Mr. Francis’s requests for admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Mr. Francis’s complaints appear to be twofold: (1) that it is somehow improper for Mr. Eversole’s attorney of record to have signed the responses rather than Mr. Eversole himself; and (2) that Mr. Eversole’s responses are false. Both of these arguments are meritless. Rule 36(a)(3) expressly authorizes a party’s attorney to sign his responses to requests for admission. And nearly all civil lawsuits involve factual disputes; such disagreements are resolved through summary judgment proceedings or trial—not discovery motions. Mr. Francis, who is proceeding pro se, is hereby cautioned that “[a]lthough pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.” Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). This includes the requirement that the legal contentions in all filings be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Violations of this requirement may result in sanctions. See id. at 11(c). 1 Dockets.Justia.com IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Luke Bradley Francis’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 40) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
