ADAMS III v. TAYLOR (2025)

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Robert Adams, III (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on January 19, 2021, alleging that defendant Corrections Officer Justin Taylor (“Defendant”) violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from a physical assault that occurred on November 24, 2019, at Groveland Correctional Facility (“GCF”). (Dkt. 1; Dkt. 79). Pending before the Court are five motions: (1) Defendant's motion for sanctions (Dkt. 354); (2) Defendant's motion to strike (Dkt. 365); (3) Plaintiff's first motion to strike (Dkt. 369); (4) Plaintiff's second motion to strike (Dkt. 371); and (5) Plaintiff's third motion to strike (Dkt. 377).

For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion for sanctions (Dkt. 354) is denied, and the motions to strike (Dkt. 365; Dkt. 369; Dkt. 371; Dkt. 377) are therefore denied as moot.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 19, 2021, by filing a complaint with several attached exhibits. (Dkt. 1). One of the exhibits included a letter dated December 3, 2019, purportedly written by David Caryl, Supervisor, Incarcerated Grievance Program at GCF (“Caryl Letter”). (Dkt. 1-5 at 7). Shortly after Defendant answered (Dkt. 34), Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 2, 2022 (Dkt. 38). The first amended complaint did not include the Caryl Letter as an exhibit. Defendant then filed a safe-harbor letter addressed to Plaintiff and dated May 23, 2022, requesting that he withdraw the Caryl Letter from his original complaint. (Dkt. 47). Defendant claimed this document was fraudulently created and warned Plaintiff that failure to remove the exhibit would cause Defendant to seek sanctions. (Id. at 1). Defendant attached a notice of motion to the letter. (Id. at 3).

Plaintiff then moved to amend the amended complaint (Dkt. 48), which the Court granted (Dkt. 78) and docketed the second amended complaint (Dkt. 79). When docketed, the second amended complaint also did not include the Caryl Letter as an exhibit. But shortly thereafter, Plaintiff moved to attach several exhibits to the second amended complaint, including the Caryl Letter. (Dkt. 90; Dkt. 90-1 at 15). Defendant confirmed he did not oppose this motion (Dkt. 99 at ¶ 5), and on January 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's request and ordered the Clerk of Court to file the proposed exhibits at Docket 90-1 as attachments to the second amended complaint. (Dkt. 106).

About 18 months after consenting to the filing of the Caryl Letter as an exhibit to the second amended complaint, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that the Caryl Letter was fraudulently created. (Dkt. 294-3 at 1-2). The Court denied Defendant's motion, holding that Defendant failed to comply with Rule 11’s procedural requirements because the safe-harbor letter (Dkt. 47) concerned an exhibit attached to the original complaint and not the operative pleading. (Dkt. 350 at 4).

Defendant now brings a renewed motion for sanctions, asking the Court to dismiss this case because Plaintiff allegedly fabricated the Caryl Letter. (Dkt. 354-3 at 1, 3-4). In response to this motion, Plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-reply. (Dkt. 364). Defendant then submitted a motion to strike the sur-reply. (Dkt. 365). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike portions of the Declaration of David Caryl (Dkt. 363-1) and Defendant's memorandum of law (Dkt. 363-2) submitted in reply to Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for sanctions. (Dkt. 369). Plaintiff then filed a second motion to strike the same material (Dkt. 371), and a third motion seeking to strike exhibits submitted in support of Defendant's motion for sanctions (Dkt. 377).

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions

The Court denies Defendant's motion for sanctions because he once again did not comply with the safe-harbor requirement set forth in Rule 11. In order to pursue sanctions under Rule 11, the party who filed the offending document must first have “an opportunity to withdraw or correct a challenged submission.” In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, 323 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 2003). The rule requires the party seeking sanctions to first serve the motion on the offending party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). The motion may be filed only with the court if the offending document has not been “appropriately corrected within 21 days after service.” Id. This is known as the safe-harbor provision, and it is a “strict procedural requirement.” Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd., 682 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 2012). “Any motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions that does not comply with these provisions must be denied.” Intravaia v. Rocky Pt. Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 12-CV-0642 (DRH)(AKT), 2014 WL 7338849, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2014).

Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision requires that “[t]he motion must be served under Rule 5” before it is filed with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Rule 5 permits service of a paper to be completed by “mailing it to the person's last known address--in which event service is complete upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). A certificate of service must be filed when a paper is served by means other than the court's electronic-filing system if the paper is also filed with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B)(i). Defendant was thus required to file a certificate of service confirming that his motion for sanctions was properly served on Plaintiff at least 21 days before it was filed. See Simpson v. Randi, No. 12-60817-CIV, 2012 WL 13005865, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2012) (“[S]ervice of the motion [for sanctions] on the violating party must also comply with the provisions of Rule 5, which require among other things, a certificate of service.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), advisory committee's note to the 2018 amendment (“When service is not made by filing with the court's electronic-filing system, a certificate of service must be filed with the paper or within a reasonable time after service, and should specify the date as well as the manner of service.”).

Defendant has failed to show through a certificate of service or affidavit that Plaintiff was served 21 days before the motion was filed. Defendant filed the motion for sanctions on December 5, 2024. (Dkt. 354). A certificate of service related to the safe-harbor letter was not included in the motion or previously filed on the docket. Defendant's memorandum of law states “[o]n October 21, 2024, Defendant sent a safe harbor letter by mail with a notice of motion to Plaintiff requesting to withdraw the documents that he submitted, however Plaintiff failed to do so.” (Dkt. 354-3 at 2). But a memorandum of law is not a sworn affidavit or certificate of service. Defendant's memorandum of law cites the attorney declaration of Muditha Halliyadde (“Halliyadde Declaration”), which provides: “[a]ttached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit B is a Defendant's safe harbor letter and the motion cover.” (Dkt. 354-2 at ¶ 4). Exhibit B of the Halliyadde Declaration includes a letter addressed to Plaintiff and dated October 21, 2024, notifying him of the motion for sanctions and attaches a copy of the two purportedly offending documents and the notice of motion. (See Dkt. 354-2 at 165-170). But nothing in the Halliyadde Declaration indicates that the material provided in Exhibit B was mailed to Plaintiff or that Plaintiff was otherwise served with these papers at least 21 days before the motion was filed. In other words, proof of service of the safe harbor letter in accordance with Rule 11 is completely absent from Defendant's pending motion.¹

Defendant has thereby failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff was served with the motion for sanctions 21 days before its filing as required by Rule 11. See Ahluwalia v. St. George's Univ., LLC, 63 F. Supp. 3d 251, 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“A properly filed affidavit of service by a plaintiff is prima facie evidence that service was properly effected.”). Without a certificate of service or other evidence that Defendant complied with Rule 11(c)(2), the Court must deny Defendant's motion for sanctions. See, e.g., Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 16-CV-5508 (VSB), 2019 WL 1437019, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (dismissing sanctions motion where there was “no indication that [defendants] or [p]laintiffs complied with Rule 11’s procedural requirement that a motion for sanctions be served on the offending party twenty-one days before it is filed with the court”), aff'd, No. 21-2603-CV, 2024 WL 1090856 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2024); Shannon v. Houston, No. 8:08CV524, 2009 WL 2951930, at *2 (D. Neb. Sept. 14, 2009) (“[W]ithout a certificate of service or a direct admission of opposing counsel to timely receiving the motion, the record includes no evidence that the Rule 11 motion was served as required.”). The Court therefore denies Defendant's motion for sanctions.

II. Motions to Strike

The remaining motions (Dkt. 365; Dkt. 369; Dkt. 371; Dkt. 377) all seek to strike filings or portions of a filing related to the motion for sanctions. Because each motion to strike is connected to the motion for sanctions, the Court denies each motion as moot.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for sanctions (Dkt. 354) is denied and the motions to strike (Dkt. 365; Dkt. 369; Dkt. 371; Dkt. 377) are denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant's motion papers contain certificates of service of the motion papers on the date the motion was filed (Dkt. 354 at 3; Dkt. 354-1 at 106; Dkt. 354-2 at 3; Dkt. 354-3 at 13), but nowhere in those certificates of service is there any indication that the safe harbor letter was served 21 days before filing the motion.

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge