Litigant Who Cited “Fictional Authority” Ordered to Include All Cited Authorities in Future Filings in Any Court

From In re Obeginski, decided by the Texas Court of Appeals yesterday (Chief Justice Scott Golemon, joined by Justices Jay Wright and Kent Chambers):

In an order imposing sanctions on Scott Mitchell Obeginski for citing fictional authority in Trial Court Cause Number 24-11-18234, the trial court ordered Obeginski, when making “any filing of any plea, pleading, motion, brief, or similar” in any capacity to “include with each filing with any and all Court(s) or Clerk(s) as attachments a copy of any and all legal authorities cited in the filing highlighting the portion of the legal authority attached which supports the proposition for which he cites the legal authority.”

In a mandamus petition, Obeginski contends the trial court’s directive is “an act far exceeding its jurisdiction” and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exercise its ministerial duty to vacate the order after “the loss of plenary power.” Obeginski argues mandamus relief is appropriate to alleviate harm from “an unconstitutional restriction on court access.” {The Order made additional rulings and imposed additional sanctions, but only the order to provide copies of cited case authority is at issue in this mandamus proceeding.} …

The trial court had personal jurisdiction over Obeginski and the inherent power to sanction him for his improper conduct in [that court]. Thus, the trial court possessed the authority to sanction Obeginski for citing fictitious legal authority in his filings in [that case]. The larger question is whether the trial court possessed the authority to require Obeginski to attach a copy of the legal authorities cited in a filing Obeginski makes with any court, not just the [trial court that issued the order].

Generally, for a sanction to be just a direct relationship must exist between the offensive conduct and the sanction imposed, and it must not be excessive. Here, the offensive conduct was repeatedly citing fictious cases. Ordering the person who cited fictitious cases to attach highlighted copies of the cited cases to his filings relates directly to the abuse found. Under appropriate circumstances, “just sanctions” includes “the authority to issue injunctions to control a party’s actions in another court.” {A trial court’s order directing a party to file supporting authority in a higher court could potentially interfere with the appellate court’s jurisdiction, but … [n]othing prevents this Court from reviewing the sanctions order on appeal and deciding then whether Obeginski must file copies of his cited case authorities with the appellate court.}

Obeginski argues the trial court has placed an unconstitutional restriction on his access to courts. He does not explain how the trial court’s command that he attach his supporting authority when he cites a case in a court proceeding encumbers his right to access courts. He has identified no language in the trial court’s order that prevents him from petitioning any court at any time, and he describes no technical burden that makes including copies of cited case authority an impediment to his access to courts….