Defendants for the attorneys’ fees and costs they have incurred in defending this action. (Doc. No. 89, Certain Defs.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Pis.’ Counsel at 1.) At the hearing, Defendants also raised the issue that certain attorney affidavits have been filed by Mr. Butler in this case signed by various attorneys other than Mr. Butler, and requested that the Court impose a nominal sanction on these attorneys as well. This issue was not raised in Defendants’ motion or memorandum in support if their motion, and therefore the Court concludes that this request is not properly before the Court. See D. Minn. Loc. R. 7.1(a)(1) (providing that “[n]o motion shall be heard by a magistrate judge unless the moving party” files the appropriate written materials fourt (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Temple v. WISAP USA in Tex., 152 F.R.D. 591,
holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case