Chaudhry v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 27, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01097
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 2:19-cv-01097-RAJ v. 11 ORDER

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 12 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions. Dkt. # 10. For 16 the reasons below, the motion is DENIED. 17 18 II. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff is a veteran and alleges that he has been a lawful permanent resident of the 20 United States since April 2001. Dkt. # 1. He brings this action claiming that Defendants 21 have unlawfully and unreasonably delayed adjudication of his applications in violation of 22 the APA. On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions claiming that he 23 did not receive a copy of Defendants’ “Response to Plaintiff’s FRCP 26(f) Conference and 24 Defendants’ Request for Extension,” filed on August 19, 2019. Dkt. # 10. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 The court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper 27 conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. 1 Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). The 2 imposition of sanctions under the court’s inherent authority is discretionary. Air 3 Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). 4 The court’s “inherent power ‘extends to a full range of litigation abuses.’ ” Fink, 239 F.3d 5 at 992 (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46-47). However, in order to sanction a litigant 6 under the court’s inherent powers, the court must make a specific finding of “bad faith or 7 conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Fink, 239 F.3d at 994. 8 Plaintiff complains that Defendants failed to properly serve their initial disclosures 9 and caused Plaintiff suffering in the amount of $3,900. However, upon review of the 10 record, the Court finds no semblance of bad faith in Defendants’ conduct. Defendants 11 accepted Plaintiff’s representation that he did not receive the Response and resent him a 12 copy August 28, 2019. The Court declines to impose sanctions and DENIES Plaintiff’s 13 motion. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

16 DATED this 27th day of November, 2019. 17

18 A 19 20 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 21 United States District Judge 22

23 24 25 26 27