UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHAKA FATTAH, JR., : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff :
:
v. : No. 14-1092-TJS
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., :
Defendants

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11

COME NOW Plaintiff Chaka Fattah, Jr., hereby moves this Court for entry of an
Order of sanctions against Defendants United States of America and Internal Revenue
Service or their Counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and in support thereof, state as
follows:
This Motion for Sanctions is specifically regarding Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 14 & 14-1, IV.) and Defendants Reply Brief (Doc. 16, D.).
1. Rule 11(b)
Rule 11(b) states that By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other
paperwhether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating itan attorney or
unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being
presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation; and further (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;(3) the factual contentions
have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of
factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
2. How Rule 11(b) relates to Defendants Brief for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14-1, IV.)
Rule 11(b)(3) requires that the factual contentions have evidentiary support as
shown above. Defendants Reply Brief (Doc.16, page 9) states Plaintiff is incorrect that the
Secretary took such action. There is no evidentiary support in the record to support that
factual contention. That is a violation of Rule 11(b)(3). Defendants did not identify the
likelihood of evidentiary support under Rule 11(3)(b) if specifically so identified, will
likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
discovery. The Declaration of Dennis L. Bohn submitted by Defendants does not address
whether or not a decision was made related to the civil penalties.
The statement Plaintiff is incorrect that the Secretary took such action. (Id.) is also a
violation of Rule 11(b)(4), since it is a denial of Plaintiff factual contention that the IRS
has already made a decision, as it did in this case(Doc. 15-1, page 39) and that any
contention that the IRS did not make a decision as it relates to the refund of these 5 penalties
is simply false (Doc. 15-1, page 39). Defendants did not identify that the denial was
reasonable based on either belief or lack of information under Rule 11(b)(4), specifically so
identified based on belief or a lack of information. That is a violation of Rule 11(b)(4).
Rule 11(b)(1) states that a signed pleading or motion submitted to the Court that an
attorney certifies that the document is not being presented for any improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Plaintiff
submits that the purpose of the motion for summary judgment was to unnecessarily delay this
litigation. Specifically, Plaintiff had to spend time preparing by researching case law, and
otherwise doing research to respond to Defendants claims regarding the statute of limitations
which delayed filing the responses (Doc. 15, 15-1, 17), and ultimately may have delayed the
Courts decision in this matter.
Since the factual contention that the IRS did not make a decision as it relates to
refunding the civil penalties assessed to Plaintiff did not have evidentiary support in violation
of Rule 11(b)(3) and 11(b)(4), the defense was not warranted by existing law or by a
nonfriviolous argument in violation of Rule 11(b)(2). The statute of limitations defense
was not a legitimate defense because it has no evidence to support it. The Defendants
submitted no declaration, no letter from the IRS, just merely the representations of Defense
counsel. They would have this Court believe that a request to refund penalties was submitted
in November 2013, and simply vanished into thin air.
3. Appropriate Sanctions
In addition or in the alternative to the commonly claimed sanction of awarding
fees and expenses to the movant, Rule 11 allows other sanctions. Subsection (c)(2) provides
that the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a non monetary nature. The
Advisory Committee (Notes) to the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 state: The court has
available a variety of possible sanctions to impose for violations, such as striking the
offending paper; issuing an admonition, reprimand, or censure; requiring participation in
seminars or other educational programs; ordering a fine payable to the court; referring the
matter to disciplinary authorities.
The Notes further identify factors to consider in determining what sanctions, if any,
should be imposed under Rule 11. Whether the improper conduct was willful, or negligent;
whether it was part of a pattern of activity, or an isolated event; whether it infected the entire
pleading, or only one particular count or defense; whether the person has engaged in similar
conduct in other litigation; whether it was intended to injure; what effect it had on the
litigation process in time or expense whether the responsible person is trained in the law;
what amount, given the financial resources of the responsible person, is needed to deter that
person from repetition in the same case; what amount is needed to deter similar activity by
other litigants
In Bullard v. Chrysler Corp., 925 F. Supp 1180, 1191 (E.D. Tex. 1996), the court
examined such factors and imposed sanctions upon an attorney for making a baseless factual
allegation, including assessing a fine of $2,500 against the attorney, publicly reprimanding
him, ordering him to complete ten hours of continuing legal education in ethics, and referring
the matter to the state bar disciplinary authorities for further investigation. See also Jennings
v. Joshua Indep. Sch. Dist., 948 F.2d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1991)(Private of public reprimands
or fixed compensatory or punitive fines may be less severe [than shifting of attorney fees]
and equally or more effective).
A number of the factors cited by the Advisory Committee count against Defendants
here. First, it was intended to injure by arguing that there should be summary judgment
because the court does not have jurisdiction. Second, Plaintiff believes the conduct was
willful because after the issue was raised in Plaintiffs response (Doc. 15-1), the Defendants
continued to argue about the statute of limitations in their reply (Doc. 16).
Plaintiff asks the Court to examine such factors, identified in the Advisory Committee
Notes, in the present matter. Plaintiff suggests a fine, payable to the Court, of $1,000 per
violation of Rule 11. Plaintiff alleges four (4) violations of Rule 11 in this filing.
4. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Chaka Fattah, Jr. requests that this Court enter an
Order of sanctions against Defendants United States of America and Internal Revenue
Service or their Counsel (1) specifically finding that Defense counsel filed two documents
with this Court containing factual contentions in violations of Rule 11 and a legal claim in
violation of Rule 11, (2) requiring Defense counsel to submit a copy of such finding to the
Plaintiff and (3) for such other and further relief that this court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
CHAKA FATTAH, JR., Pro Se
5783 Nassau Road
Philadelphia, PA 19131
Phone: 215-301-8125
Email: cfattahjr@gmail.com