Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RICHARD WAYNE, et al., No. 2:25-cv-1113-DAD-CKD (PS)

12 Plaintiffs,

13 v. ORDER

14 SIERRA COUNTY, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiffs’ motions for sanctions, request for oral argument, and motion for administrative

18 relief are before the court. (ECF Nos. 136, 138, 139, 153.) For the reasons set forth below, the

19 motions and requests are denied. Defendants’ request for sanctions against plaintiffs is also

20 denied.

21 I. Background

22 Proceeding without counsel, plaintiffs Richard Wayne and Michal Mickey Wayne

23 initiated this case with their original complaint filed on April 16, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On May 29,

24 2025, they filed a first amended complaint bringing several claims against various defendants

25 arising out of disputes over permitting for building on plaintiffs’ land in Sierra County. (ECF No.

26 51.) All named defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint.

27 On August 20, 2025, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations recommending

28 the court grant all defendants’ motions to dismiss the first amended complaint and grant plaintiffs

1 leave to amend certain claims against certain defendants. (ECF No. 119.) Plaintiffs filed

2 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 120.) On September 12, 2025, the

3 Sierra County defendants filed a response to the objections. (ECF No. 135.)

4 The district judge assigned to this case adopted the findings and recommendations on

5 March 19, 2026. (ECF No. 149.) Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of that order is pending

6 before the assigned district judge. (ECF No. 152.)

7 Plaintiffs seek sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against the defendants

8 associated with Sierra County and their counsel who signed some of the motions to dismiss

9 and/or a response to plaintiffs’ objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 138,

10 139.) Defendants opposed the motions for sanctions, requesting instead that plaintiffs be

11 sanctioned for bringing these motions. (ECF No. 145.) Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 146.)

12 On April 3, 2026, plaintiffs requested an oral argument on the motions for sanctions. (ECF

13 No. 153.) As was previously determined, both motions for sanctions are suitable for decision

14 without oral argument. (See ECF No. 42.) Accordingly, the request for oral argument is denied.

15 II. Discussion

16 “Section 1927 authorizes the imposition of sanctions against any lawyer who wrongfully

17 proliferates litigation proceedings once a case has commenced.” Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v.

18 Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000). Sanctions under 1927 may also be

19 imposed upon a pro se plaintiff. Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1236 (9th Cir. 1990); Brown v.

20 Adidas Int., 938 F.Supp. 628, 636 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, like

21 any sanctions imposed under a court’s inherent power, require a finding of bad faith which is

22 assessed under a subjective standard. Id. at 1118. Bad faith in this context is established by

23 knowing, willful, or reckless conduct. Id.

24 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions where a party has

25 advanced an argument in any signed paper before the court that is (1) presented for “any improper

26 purpose,” or (2) not warranted by existing law or “by a nonfrivolous argument” to change,

27 modify, or reverse existing law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Rule 11 also applies to pro se plaintiffs.

28 Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994). Imposing sanctions under Rule 11 is “an

1 extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust

2 v. A-C Company, 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 11(c)(2) requires service of a motion

3 brought under Rule 11(b) be made 21 days prior to filing.

4 Here, the parties dispute whether plaintiffs complied with the safe harbor provision of

5 Rule 11(c)(2) as to their request for relief under Rule 11. That dispute is immaterial to the

6 outcome of the pending motions for sanctions. Assuming without deciding that Rule 11(c)(2)

7 does not prevent the undersigned from imposing discretionary sanctions if the undersigned finds

8 sanctionable conduct, the undersigned declines to impose any sanction.

9 In requesting sanctions, plaintiffs argue defense counsel’s filings contained false

10 information, false arguments, and fraudulent misrepresentations. More specifically, plaintiffs

11 challenge counsel’s interpretation of legal authorities, accuse counsel of attempting to multiply

12 proceedings and confuse the court, assert counsel’s contradictory statements and arguments

13 suggest improper use of AI tools, and argue counsel continued to assert arguments in motions

14 which plaintiffs had indicated they believed violated Rule 11. Plaintiffs request sanctions in the

15 form of an order striking offending statements from defendants’ motions to dismiss, an order

16 requiring payment of reasonable attorney fees or other expenses, contempt proceedings, and/or a

17 recommendation to the State Bar for an ethics violation.

18 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any sanctions are justified. “The central purpose of Rule

19 11 is to deter baseless filings.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v.

20 Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 254 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496

21 U.S. 394 (1990)). Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate defendants or their counsel made any frivolous

22 arguments or asserted any arguments for an improper purpose within the meaning of Rule 11.

23 Requests for sanctions based on disagreement over facts and legal arguments generally

24 will not justify imposition of sanctions. See, e.g., Engel v. Paragon Sys., Inc., No. 2:24-CV-

25 02479-DJC-CKD PS, 2025 WL 1158517, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2025), report and

26 recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-02479-DJC-CKD PS, 2025 WL 2751253 (E.D. Cal. Sept.

27 29, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-6474, 2025 WL 4057072 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025), and cert.

28 denied, No. 2:24-CV-02479-DJC-CKD (PS), 2026 WL 496958 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026); Shaw

1 |} v. Mason, No. 2:16-CV-00729-TLN-CKD, 2024 WL 584160, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2024)

2 || (denying motion for sanctions asserting a motion to dismiss made arguments that were “frivolous,

3 || legally unreasonable, and... for an improper purpose” and cautioning the plaintiff against filing

4 | further motions for sanctions under similar circumstances). An incorrect legal argument does not

5 || equate to a legal theory that is sanctionable. See Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823,

6 | 830 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated by Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (“It is

7 || obvious from the text of [Rule 11] that the pleader need not be correct in his view of the law.”).

8 | The undersigned finds subjective bad faith is not established. No sanctions are warranted.

9 Separately, plaintiffs also have a request for administrative relief pending in which they

10 || ask to attach the complete content of their original complaint to their first amended complaint.

11 | (ECF No. 136.) In light of the procedural posture of this case, and the dismissal of the first

12 || amended complaint, this request is denied as moot.

13 Il. Order

14 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

15 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 138 is DENIED.

16 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 139) is DENIED.

17 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for hearing and oral argument (ECF No. 153) is DENIED and the

18 hearing set on that motion to take place on May 27, 2026, is VACATED.

19 4. Defendants’ request for sanctions (ECF No. 145) is also DENIED.

20 5. Plaintiff's motion for administrative relief (ECF No. 136) is DENIED as moot.

21 | Dated: April 9, 2026 / □□ I / dle ae

23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24

25 || 8 wayn2Sev1113.san

26

27

28