Tinsley v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 16 October 1986
• Docket Number: C,No. 86-7021,86-7021
• Citation: 256 U.S.App.D.C. 225,804 F.2d 1254
• Parties: Lindell TINSLEY, Appellant, v. James A. MITCHELL, Steve Nagle, et al., Appellees. iv A 83-01697.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1254

804 F.2d 1254

256 U.S.App.D.C. 225

Lindell TINSLEY, Appellant, v. James A. MITCHELL, Steve Nagle, et al., Appellees.

No. 86-7021, Civ A 83-01697.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 16, 1986.

Published Nov. 4, 1986.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 83-01607).

Lindell Tinsley was on appellant's Motion for Emergency Relief and Motion for Summary Reversal or Stay of Order of Civil Contempt.

William Gray Schaffer, Washington, D.C., was on appellee's Memorandum in Response to Appellant's Motions.

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY REVERSAL OR STAY OF ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT

Before WALD, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and STARR, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant's Motion for Emergency Relief and Motion for Summary Reversal or Stay of Order of Civil Contempt, the appellees' response thereto, appellant's response to the court's order to show cause, and the record of the proceedings before the district court, it is

ORDERED by the court on its own motion, for the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, that the judgment of contempt be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings. It is

FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the show cause order previously entered be discharged.

The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the district court in lieu of formal mandate.

MEMORANDUM

This is an appeal from a final judgment holding appellant in civil contempt and levying a fine of $50.00 per day. The case arises out of litigation brought by Mr. Tinsley, on behalf of a lawyer-client, against American Airlines, et al. which resulted in a directed verdict in favor of the corporate defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case. ¹ The district court thereafter imposed sanctions, jointly and severally, on Mr. Tinsley and his client, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 26(g), finding that the litigation had been "unreasonably protracted and vexatiously maintained" (Transcript of July 12, 1985 Hearing at 2-3) and that plaintiff's responses to discovery had been evasive, tardy, and incomplete. (Transcript of July 12, 1985 Hearing at 1.)

A judgment of $10,713.45, representing defendants' attorney's fees and costs, was entered against Mr. Tinsley and his client on August 6, 1985. The defendants' efforts to secure satisfaction of the judgment from Mr. Tinsley were singularly unsuccessful. (In contrast, Mr. Tinsley's client, the plaintiff in the original action, dutifully remitted approximately one-half of the total judgment.) Their patience exhausted, the defendants eventually filed a motion seeking an order to show cause why Mr. Tinsley should not be held in contempt for his failure to satisfy the judgment.

The district court issued a show cause order to Mr. Tinsley and set the matter for hearing on July 3, 1986. Counsel for the defendants failed to appear for that hearing and the case was continued to August 6, 1986.

At the second hearing, the district court heard argument and adjudged Mr. Tinsley in civil contempt. The court imposed a sanction of $100.00 per day until the court approved "an arrangement of some sort in order for [Mr. Tinsley] to discharge this liability which has been pending for a period of one year without resolution." (Transcript of August 6, 1986 Hearing at 5.) The court suspended imposition of judgment for five days to afford the parties an opportunity to reach an amicable resolution of the long-pending matter.

On August 11, 1986, the court was informed that no resolution had been reached. Mr. Tinsley indicated that he had been proceeding in good faith to attempt to satisfy the judgment but had been financially unable to do so. He cited a variety of reasons, including illness, the imminent birth of a child, a fledgling and financially unrewarding law practice, and unavailing efforts to secure financial assistance. He specifically stated to the court that "I have sought to raise money to pay the court order. And I am willing to do whatever I can to raise the money to pay this court order." (Transcript August 11, 1986 Hearing at 5.)

The court was unmoved. Notwithstanding Mr. Tinsley's representations that he had witnesses present and available to testify to his precarious financial situation, the court, without hearing any testimony or entering any findings of fact, found appellant in civil contempt and imposed a fine of $50.00 a day until the underlying judgment, $5,713.45 plus interest, is paid. The district court denied Mr. Tinsley's oral motion for a stay.

Mr. Tinsley filed an appeal and thereafter moved in this court for emergency relief and summary reversal or a stay. We promptly directed appellees to file a response to Mr. Tinsley's motions and ordered Mr. Tinsley to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to post a supersedeas bond in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d)....