Still Chilling after All These Years: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and its Impact on Federal Civil Rights Plaintiffs after the 1993 Amendments

Abstract

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended in 1983 in an effort to provide federal district courts with a tool to curb frivolous litigation and, hence, to help control their dockets. In practice, however, the Rule produced severe chilling effects on plaintiffs asserting civil rights claims in the federal courts. Rule 11 was therefore amended again ten years later to reduce or alleviate, among other things, these effects. Unfortunately, the case law research conducted here suggests that, because of the way the 1993 amendments are being interpreted and applied in the federal courts, the chilling effects continue to exist today. The more particular result of this finding is that, in all likelihood, plaintiffs bringing civil rights claims are, and will continue to be, disproportionately affected by Rule 11. At stake in the Rule 11 debate is access to justice. More specifically, under a separation of powers ideal, courts operate to prevent oppression of minorities by the majority; they function, at least in part, to hold government accountable by constitutional standards; and they are an important forum in which public values and group rights can be discussed, renegotiated, and vindicated. Access to courts for minorities asserting rights is therefore a part of a dynamic process of cultural transformation, one that is currently being stymied by the way in which Rule 11 is being interpreted and applied by the federal courts. The solution, then, is for the federal courts to adopt high sanctioning thresholds that privilege access to court over other values that may also be served by the Rule, such as efficiency.

Keywords: Sanctions, civil procedure, civil rights, access to courts, access to justice

JEL Classification: J7, J70, J71, J78, K4, K40, K41, K49