United States v. James Shandy , 657 F. App'x 626 ( 2016 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1006
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
James L. Shandy
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: September 5, 2016
Filed: October 5, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Taxpayer James Shandy appeals after the District Court1 entered default
judgment against him as a sanction for discovery abuses in this civil action brought
by the government to reduce to judgment tax liability assessments and civil penalties.
1
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning
Shandy for his failure to follow the court’s orders and participate in discovery. See
Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d
1084, 1105 (8th Cir. 2004) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s
“‘decision to impose a sanction, the nature of the sanction imposed, and the factual
basis for the court’s decision’” (citation to quoted case omitted)); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii) (stating that the court may order sanctions if “a party, after
being properly served with interrogatories . . . , fails to serve its answers, objections,
or written response”), 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) (noting that an order “rendering a default
judgment against the disobedient party” is included among “just orders” that may
issue for not obeying a discovery order). The record supports the court’s finding that
Shandy’s actions were willful. See Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir.
2001) (holding that default judgment was appropriate when “defendants’ conduct
include[d] a complete failure to engage in discovery”).
As to the government’s motion for sanctions, we may award “just damages”
and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28
U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we conclude that sanctions are
appropriate. See United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256–57 (8th Cir. 1993)
(per curiam), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant the
government’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $8000.00.
______________________________
-2-