Devaughn v. District of Columbia
| Decision Date | 03 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1679,78-1679 |
| Citation | 628 F.2d 205 |
| Parties | Edward R. DeVAUGHN et al., v. The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation et al., David Santee Miller, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.Civil 77-0298).
David Santee Miller, pro se, was on the brief for appellant.
Louis P. Robbins, Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee.
Carl S. Rauh, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time the appearance was entered and Peter E. George, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.
Before ROBB and MIKVA, Circuit Judges and GESELL, * United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
David Miller, a member of the bar, appeals from an order of the District Court holding him in contempt for the late filing of a pretrial statement in a civil case. The court's order must be reversed.
Miller represented the plaintiff in a civil action against the District of Columbia, known as DeVaughn v. District of Columbia. A pretrial conference in the case was scheduled for May 4, 1978 and the court ordered both sides to file pretrial statements five days before the conference. Neither party met the deadline; Miller filed his statement on May 3 and counsel for the defendant filed his on May 4.
At the beginning of the pretrial conference the district judge referred to the failure of counsel to file their statements on time and said "The Court would be interested in knowing why the directions of the Court were ignored." The following then occurred:
On May 5, 1978 the court entered the following order:
Counsel for plaintiff, having failed to file his pretrial statement by five days before the pretrial hearing as directed in the Pre-trial notice, is hereby found in contempt of Court, and is fined Fifty Dollars ($50.00). Fine is to be paid by May 10, 1978.
The court thus found Miller guilty of a criminal contempt. To justify that finding there must have been evidence that Miller deliberately or recklessly disregarded his obligation to the court, or intended some disrespect to the court. Sykes v. United States, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 444 F.2d 928 (1971). There was no such evidence. At the most, Miller's explanation of his tardiness established negligence, or perhaps that he was afflicted with the occupational weakness of lawyers who "perceive not how Time moves". Certainly it does not appear beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted either intentionally or recklessly in failing to file on time. It follows that an essential element of the offense of criminal contempt was not proved.
We note also that because the court punished Miller summarily the proceeding was subject to Fed.R.Crim.P. 42(a) which provides:
(A) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc.
...whose dilatoriness or other obstruction of court processes was not shown to be willful. See, e.g., DeVaughn v. District of Columbia, 628 F.2d 205, 207 (D.C.Cir.1980) (per curiam) (late filing of pretrial statement); In re Farquhar, 492 F.2d 561, 564 (D.C.Cir.1973) (tardiness at reconvened S......
-
Betz v. State
...that failure. Criminal contempt is not a strict liability offense; willfulness or intent is an essential element. DeVaughn v. District of Columbia, 628 F.2d 205 (D.C.Cir.1980); Duemling v. Fort Wayne Community Concerts, Inc., 243 Ind. 521, 188 N.E.2d 274 (1963); Sheridan v. Kennedy, 12 A.D.......
-
US v. Nynex Corp., Cr. No. 90-0238 (HHG).
...of that order; (3) that NYNEX violated the order; and (4) that NYNEX's violation was willful. See, e.g., DeVaughn v. District of Columbia, 628 F.2d 205, 207 (D.C.Cir.1980) (requirement of deliberate or reckless disregard for court order); Douglass v. First Nat. Rlty. Corp., 543 F.2d 894, 89......
-
Ahmed v. Reiss SS Co., Civ. A. No. C 80-506.
...disregarded his obligation to the court. Such intentional disrespect is sanctionable by criminal contempt. DeVaughn v. District of Columbia, 628 F.2d 205 (D.C.Cir.1980). An unavoidable schedule conflict caused by an unexpectedly long trial is understandable. This Court is always willing to ......