Souksamlane v. Corrections, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: February 17, 1998
• Docket: CV-97-400-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Souksamlane v. Corrections, et al. CV-97-400-M 02/17/98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thavone Souksamlane

v. Civil No. 97-400-M

Corrections Commissioner, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff Thavone Souksamlane has filed an objection to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation finding that

Souksamlane lied during a hearing when he gave testimony about a

prison incident. As a result the Magistrate Judge denied

Souksamlane's reguest for injunctive relief. In addition, the

Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal of Souksamlane's

suit, as a sanction for his perjury. The report of the

Magistrate Judge recommending dispositive action is reviewed de

novo. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

A. Request for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief

precluding his transfer to another prison, alleging a litany of

abuses and harassment. He then filed another motion for

emergency relief, alleging that he was attacked, beaten, and

maced by correctional officers on December 31, 1997. The

Magistrate Judge held a hearing at which plaintiff, the prison

classification officer, and a prison correctional officer

testified. In the course of the hearing it was revealed that the December 31 incident was recorded on videotape. Anticipating the

results of the videotape, plaintiff filed a motion to add a

defendant, in which he alleged that because of the beating and

abuse he suffered, he could not provide an accurate statement at

the pretrial hearing.

The Magistrate Judge reviewed the videotape and documentary

evidence submitted in the case and found that the officers acted

appropriately and professionally during the December 31 incident;

that defendants' testimony and exhibits contradicted plaintiff's

allegations and testimony; and, that plaintiff did not testify

truthfully at the hearing. In addition, the Magistrate Judge

found, based on his observations of plaintiff's demeanor and body

language during the hearing, that plaintiff's memory of the

incident was not impaired. The judge also found that plaintiff

deliberately lied when he claimed that his testimony was not

accurate because of the effects of his treatment by defendants.

Concluding that plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of

success on the merits of his claims in support of injunctive

relief, the Magistrate recommended that his motion be denied.

The Magistrate's factual findings are fully supported by the

record, and they are hereby approved and adopted. Since only

plaintiff's untruthful testimony supported his allegations of

mistreatment, he did not establish a likelihood of success on the

merits of his claims, and his reguests for injunctive or

emergency relief fail. See Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155, 159

(1st Cir. 1997). The Magistrate Judge's report and

2 recommendation is approved with respect to denial of plaintiff's

motions for injunctive relief (documents 19 and 25).

B. Sanction

When a plaintiff's misconduct causes a fraud on the court,

the court may dismiss the suit as an appropriate sanction. Aoude

v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1119 (1st Cir. 1989). "A

'fraud on the court' occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly

and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some

unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial

system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly

influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the opposing party's

claim or defense." Id. at 1118. In plain words, if, in support

of his suit, a plaintiff deliberately lies about things that

supposedly happened to him by telling the court under oath that

people beat him for no reason or otherwise mistreated him, when

in fact nothing of the sort happened, or tells the court that he

did not do things that he did do, and if these lies matter to

plaintiff's suit, he has caused a fraud on the court and risks

dismissal of his suit, both as a personal sanction and to protect

the integrity of judicial proceedings in general. In this case,

the Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff's suit be

dismissed as a sanction for his false testimony and false

representations to the court.

Outright dismissal of a lawsuit is a "particularly severe

sanction" for misconduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,

3 45 (1991). Though plaintiff is acting pro se, he is no stranger

to the justice system and surely knows that false testimony under

oath in a United States court proceeding is not tolerable, and

indeed is criminal conduct if the subject is material.

Because by lying under oath about a material matter and

deliberately misrepresenting facts in pleadings, plaintiff has

engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly

administration of justice, and because he willfully deceived the

court (and even repeats his attempted deception in his "Motion to

Amend Complaint," attached to document no. 41), the court will

accept the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and exercise its

inherent power to dismiss plaintiff's civil suit to protect the

integrity of its proceedings and as a personal sanction for

plaintiff's calculated fraud and perjury. Aoude v. Mobil Oil

Corp., supra, 892 F.2d at 1119-20 (citing cases).

Conclusion

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document

no. 39) is approved and adopted. The plaintiff's complaint is

also dismissed. All pending motions are denied as moot in light

of the dismissal.

4 SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

February 17, 1998

cc: Thavone Souksamlane Jennifer B. Gavilondo, Esq.