Ehm v. Amtrak Bd. of Directors, 85-2318
| Decision Date | 15 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2318,85-2318 |
| Citation | 780 F.2d 516 |
| Parties | Alfred E. EHM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Alfred E. Ehm, pro se.
Chris Klein, David J. Carol, Washington, D.C., for Amtrak Nat. R.R.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before RUBIN, JOHNSON and JONES, Circuit Judges.
This is the most recent battle in a long-standing and apparently endless war waged by Appellant Ehm against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). It is a consolidation of two actions in which Ehm alleged that Amtrak on various occasions violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 1
The present appeal stems from a motion in which Amtrak requested the district court to require Ehm to post a bond insuring the payment of court costs should he lose on the merits of his case. In support, Amtrak noted the "harassing" nature of the numerous actions brought against it by Ehm, as well as Ehm's failure to pay the costs awarded against him in three other lawsuits.
The district court granted Amtrak's motion and ordered Ehm to post a $500 costs bond within twenty days. Ehm responded by filing objections to the order in which he alleged in part that the district court lacked "discretion to require an FOIA complainant to post a cash bond."
After considering Ehm's objections in detail, the district court declined to modify or vacate its order. The court allowed Ehm an additional fifteen days to post the $500 bond and warned him of the consequences of his failure to do so. When Ehm did not post the bond within the time allowed by the court in its second order, the court dismissed his action without prejudice.
Ehm appears to argue that neither the legislative history nor the "plain language" of the FOIA provides for a bond and the district court by doing so impermissibly impaired his standing to challenge the legality of Amtrak's denial of the information that he requested under the Act.
Security for costs is not covered by Rule 54(d) and there is no general jurisprudential rule governing the subject. 2 As a procedural matter, security for costs is a proper subject for regulation by local rules promulgated under Fed.R.Civ.P. 83. Even in the absence of a local rule, however, a district court has inherent power to require security for costs when warranted by the circumstances of the case. "From this it follows that the court is vested with a large measure of discretion in applying such rules as it does promulgate," the First Circuit said in Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante. 3
In exacting a bond, the district court relied on its authority under W.D.Tex.Loc R. 300-3. 4 This rule provides in part that "[e]ither party ... may be required to give bond or other security for costs as the court may direct." Finding no Fifth Circuit authority on point, the district court adapted to the case the factors enumerated by the First Circuit in Aggarwal v. Ponce School of Medicine, 5 an action in which a nonresident plaintiff was required to post a security bond. The Aggarwal factors include the probability of plaintiff's success on the merits, the background and purpose of the suit, and the reasonableness of amount of the posted security viewed from the perspective of both plaintiff and defendant. Finding that these factors weighed heavily against Ehm, the court required him to post a bond before proceeding any further.
The district court's requirement is reasonable. Ehm has objected to the bond requirement solely on legal grounds and has not indicated that it creates a financial burden or prevents him from prosecuting his lawsuit. The record indicates that he is a veteran pro se litigator who has filed numerous lawsuits, many of which have been repetitious or of doubtful legal merit. Although Ehm prevailed at least in part on one of his previous appeals to this court, 6 he has failed to pay any of the costs assessed against him in several actions in which he failed to prevail. At the time of the district court's order, these totaled $889. Moreover, as Amtrak points out, it is "inherently unfair" that it should continue to bear the substantial litigation costs created by a plaintiff who "readily initiates actions but then refuses to pay the costs taxed to him."
Ehm's next argument is confusing, but he appears to contend that the district court "contravened the clear intent of Congress and the express language" of FOIA by requiring him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coghlan v. Starkey
...procedural step").Of course, sanctions are inappropriate if the appeal presents an issue of first impression. Ehm v. Amtrak Bd. of Directors, 780 F.2d 516, 518 (5th Cir.1986) ("[T]he issue presented by his appeal, i.e., the propriety of a dismissal for failure to post a cost bond, involves ......
-
Gay v. Chandra
...findings); Simulnet East Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1994) (same); Ehm v. Amtrak Board of Directors, 780 F.2d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1986) (affirming dismissal). A court may require a bond where “there is reason to believe that the prevailing party will find ......
-
In re Goode
...rules. See, e.g., Carroll v. The Jaques Admiralty Law Firm, P.C., 110 F.3d 290, 292–93 (5th Cir.1997) ; Ehm v. Amtrak Bd. of Dirs., 780 F.2d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Martin–Trigona v. Morris, 627 F.2d 680, 682 n. 1 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam). Federal courts enjoy the inherent ......
-
Gay v. Chandra
...litigant whose claims were often conclusory and lacking in legal merit" to post "reasonable" security for costs); Ehm v. Amtrak Bd. of Dirs., 780 F.2d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1986) (the court ordered a plaintiff to post a bond for court costs due to the harassing nature of the numerous actions b......