Sanction of indigent party is upheld

This week the Court of Appeals upheld a $100.00 sanction imposed on an indigent litigant for filing what the trial court deemed a frivolous motion.  In Rhodes v. City of Southfield, the petitioner had sought a writ of superintending control to remove the case against him from the District Court where it was pending.  Apparently after he lost the motion, he sought reconsideration without establshing new grounds.  The trial court entered the sanction, which Mr. Rhodes argued was unnecessary and excessive for a person without means. 

The Court of Appeals opinion held that the amount of sanctions imposed is detemined by the cost to the respondent of addressing a frivolous pleading:  therefore the impact on Rhodes was irrelevant.  In fact, it is highly likely that the instant sanction was considered de minimis by the Court that imposed it.