Don't be the pro-se plaintiff constantly asking for sanctions
- Peter Schneider
- Oct 20
- 4 min read
Updated: Oct 26
A theme I see with some pro-se plaintiffs is constantly asking for sanctions. Because sometimes I consult with them on their cases maybe I am more sensitive to it, but it drives me a little crazy when I see a pro-se see anything from a small mistake from the other side, to a strategic choice from the other side and they get all hot under the collar asking for sanctions. If that's you, there is an easy way to cool yourself down. Ask yourself, have you ever seen a court case [much preferably from your district] where someone else in a similar situation was sanctioned? If not, what makes you think your defendant is going to get sanctioned?
Here is the reality: most judges won't sanction an attorney for anything but repeated egregious behavior unless the judge already has it out for that lawyer. It's usually difficult to get sanctions to stick on appeal for anything but egregious behavior, so mindless motions for sanctions do more to get the judge to think the pro-se plaintiff is an idiot and that doesn't help to move the ball forward.
As an example, let's look at case Johnson v. NationStar Mortg. LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00855, 2025 LX 454073 (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2025). I don't know anything about this case outside of this opinion, but the two defendants filed motions to dismiss, so the pro-se plaintiff asked the court for permission to amend the complaint and for sanctions.
Plaintiff further seeks sanctions against both Defendants for "submitting" and "presenting" purportedly false and inconsistent or contradictory representations in their filings related to their motions to dismiss (and perhaps in responding to his Motion to Amend). Plaintiff seeks such sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires attorneys (and unrepresented parties) "to certify, on the basis of a reasonable inquiry, that any pleading or paper they file with a district court (1) is not filed 'for any improper purpose'; (2) is 'warranted by existing law'; and (3) alleges facts that 'have evidentiary support.'" Lokhova v. Halper, 30 F.4th 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)). This court may, in its discretion, impose sanctions for violations of Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). "[I]n exercising that discretion to impose sanctions for a pleading or paper's lack of legal support, the court must apply an objective standard, inquiring whether 'a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could not have believed his actions to be legally justified.'" Lokhova, 30 F.4th at 354 (quoting Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery, 281 F.3d 144, 153 (4th Cir. 2022)). To be sanctionable, a legal argument must have "absolutely no chance of success under the existing precedent." Hunter, 281 F.3d at 153. Even assuming without deciding that Plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A), he has not shown that Defendants' counsel made sanctionable legal arguments or otherwise violated Rule 11. With respect to Nationstar, Plaintiff avers that sanctions are warranted because Nationstar falsely denied "foreclosure activity," failed "to produce the original endorsed note and gaps in chain of title," improperly reported Plaintiff's credit; failed "to Provide Required Force-Placed Insurance Notices Before Escrow Charges;" and falsely denied its debt collector status. Much of the conduct about which Plaintiff complains does not relate to a paper filed in this court by Nationstar; instead it pertains to Plaintiff's allegations underlying this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). In any event, to the extent Plaintiff's motion for sanctions does refer to a court filing, the court discerns no improper purpose, argument plainly foreclosed by existing law, or statement made without any basis. The court is not persuaded that Nationstar's statements concerning foreclosure or denial of its debt collector status were for an improper purpose or without basis. Similarly, Nationstar is not required, at the present stage, to present evidence to challenge Plaintiff's allegations. [This isn't the first pro-se plaintiff I've seen convinced that the defendant has to show evidence to support their claims and defenses at the motion to dismiss stage] Relatedly, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions as to Progressive is based on his argument that it engaged in "contradictory policy handling and deceptive underwriting" and "furnish[ed] misleading documents and support[ed] debt collection." These arguments, again, are largely duplicative of those underlying Plaintiff's initiation of this action, not a filing made with the court for an improper purpose or without basis. In any event, the court has reviewed the papers and discerns no sanctionable conduct by Progressive. In all, Plaintiff's Rule 11(c) motions for sanctions focus heavily on the merits of his claims and seek sanctions for Defendants' opposition to such claims. A motion for Rule 11(c) sanctions is not the proper vehicle to adjudicate the merits of Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, at the present stage, Defendants' challenges are to the sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleading; Defendants are not required to produce evidence in support of their challenges. No basis for Rule 11 sanctions exists.
Don't use motions for sanctions to harass the defense for small mistakes, and don't clown yourself to the judge by demanding the defendants prove their case at the motion to dismiss stage. You want the judge to see you as competent and none of this does that.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments