The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court's decision to sanction Isaac Nsejjere for filing frivolous motions in a defamation lawsuit against Caryn Anderton. The court ruled that Nsejjere failed to comply with restrictions placed on him due to a history of vexatious litigation. This ruling not only affirms the lower court's decision but also imposes additional financial penalties on Nsejjere.

Nsejjere's case began after a brief romantic relationship with Anderton ended. Following the breakup, Nsejjere claimed that Anderton made defamatory statements about him, alleging he was a pedophile. He filed a lawsuit against her for defamation, but the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice in July 2024. The court also imposed sanctions against Nsejjere, citing his history of filing numerous pro se civil complaints since 2019 and engaging in bad faith litigation tactics.

As part of the sanctions, the court barred Nsejjere from filing any further litigation against Anderton and her associates without prior approval from the presiding judge of Snohomish County Superior Court. Nsejjere was also ordered to pay $15,000 in sanctions. This decision was upheld by Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals.

In December 2025, Nsejjere attempted to reopen his defamation case, claiming he had new evidence that would change the outcome. He presented a declaration from A.S.R., a woman he had a relationship with, stating they met when she was 20 years old and that they were raising two children together. Nsejjere argued that this evidence disproved Anderton's claims about him.

However, he did not seek the required permission from the presiding judge before filing his motion to reopen the case. Judge George Appel, who reviewed the motion, denied it, stating it was a bad faith attempt to reargue claims that had already been dismissed. He also imposed an additional $15,000 sanction on Nsejjere for continuing to engage in bad faith litigation practices.

After Judge Appel's ruling, Nsejjere sought clarification on the order, but his request was deemed untimely. Judge Appel later amended his order to clarify that the motion was struck due to non-compliance with the vexatious litigant restrictions. He also noted that even if the motion had not been struck, he would have denied it as lacking merit.

On March 18, 2026, a different judge issued a judgment against Nsejjere for a total of $30,000, which included the sanctions imposed by both Judge Appel and the presiding judge. Nsejjere subsequently appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court had erred in striking his motion.

The Court of Appeals reviewed Nsejjere's claims and found no error in Judge Appel's decision. The court emphasized that a trial court has the discretion to control the conduct of litigants who engage in abusive or frivolous litigation. The court noted that Nsejjere's pattern of behavior justified the imposition of vexatious litigant restrictions.

The court stated, "Nsejjere did not explain how a declaration from A.S.R. amounts to newly discovered evidence or why he could not have obtained it earlier." This statement highlighted the lack of merit in Nsejjere's arguments for reopening the case.

Additionally, the court found Nsejjere's appeal to be frivolous, stating that he could not support his claims with any rational argument. As a result, the court awarded Anderton attorney fees and costs associated with the appeal.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal system's ability to impose restrictions on individuals who engage in a pattern of abusive litigation. It also underscores the importance of adhering to court procedures and the consequences of failing to do so.

Looking ahead, Nsejjere may still have options for appeal, but the court's strong stance on vexatious litigation suggests that future motions may face similar scrutiny. The court declined to issue further vexatious litigant orders against Nsejjere at this time, but the possibility remains if he continues to engage in similar behavior.