Patterson v. Aiken

James T. Patterson appeals the district court's assessment of $4,947 in Rule 11 attorney's fees against him. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. We affirm. The Rule 11 sanction assessed against Patterson arose out of Patterson's pro se filing of a complaint against numerous attorneys, three federal judges, and several film distribution companies. Patterson's seven-count complaint alleged antitrust and constitutional violations by individuals all of whom were somehow involved in four prior related, unsuccessful lawsuits. See, e.g., NITE v. Buena Vista Distribution, 748 F.2d 602 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1056, 105 S. Ct. 2120, 85 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1985); NITE v. Charter Financial Group, 747 F.2d 1396 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1056, 85 L. Ed. 2d 484, 105 S. Ct. 2120 (1985).