John Williams v. Robert B. Carney

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10740 AUGUST 3, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-61385-CV-PCH
JOHN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL WEISS,
HAL ANDERSON,
BILLING, COCHRAN, HEALTH, LYLES,
MAURO & ANDERSON, P.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 3, 2006)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Williams filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
against attorneys Michael Weiss and Hal Anderson, and their law firm, Billing,
Cochran, Heath, Lyles, Mauro & Anderson, P.A (collectively, Billing Cochran). In
a prior appeal, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Williams’ complaint.1
See Williams v. Carney, 157 F. App’x 103 (11th Cir. 2005). Williams now appeals
the district court’s grant of Billing Cochran’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against
him. He argues the district court failed to give sufficient reasoning as to why it
imposed sanctions. We agree and, therefore, vacate and remand the district court’s
order for further explanation.
A district court’s award of Rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 11
permits imposing sanctions on an attorney, law firm, or party as the court deems
appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). When the district court orders sanctions, it
must describe the conduct it determined warranted sanctions and explain the basis
for the sanctions imposed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
307 F.3d 1277, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). “[A] district court abuses its discretion by
imposing sanctions on a plaintiff and his attorney absent findings that the plaintiff
and his attorney violated Rule 11.” Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 526 (11th
1
Although Williams raises arguments as to our holding in his previous appeal, we will
not address those arguments in the present appeal.
2
Cir. 1998).
Here, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Rule 11 sanctions
against Williams, but failed to explain its reasons for doing so. It subsequently
issued a report and recommendation that calculated the amount to be paid and the
reasons for that amount, but again failed to explain why it ordered sanctions in the
first place. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report without further
explanation. As a result, this Court has no record for review to determine whether
the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly,
we vacate the order granting Rule 11 sanctions and remand for further explanation
in accordance with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3