UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6066
In Re: JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR.,
Petitioner.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-06-1-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Marion Head, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s sua sponte order modifying a prefiling injunction.
Under the terms of the modified injunction, the district court will
accept no further filings from Head, and any documents that Head
submits to the district court will be returned, unopened, to Head.
The district court therefore precluded Head from again filing any
document within the Western District of North Carolina. Because
Head was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the
district court entered the order, we vacate the order and remand
for further proceedings.
A federal court may issue a prefiling injunction when a
litigant’s vexatious conduct hinders the court from fulfilling its
constitutional duty. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-74
(11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). It is imperative that the court afford
the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing
such an injunction. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d
812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004). Further, a prefiling injunction “must be
narrowly tailored to fit the particular circumstances of the case,”
Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993), and should
not be so broad as to effectively deny all access to the courts.
Cromer, 390 F.3d at 818-19. When imposing an injunction, the court
considers several factors, including whether, instead of a complete
- 2 -
ban on all future filings in any and all cases, a less severe
sanction might achieve the desired deterrent effect. Id.
Here, the district court did not afford Head notice and
an opportunity to be heard prior to modifying the prefiling
injunction that had been in effect for approximately ten years.
Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings. On remand, the district court should
reconsider the breadth of the modified injunction, keeping in mind
our admonition in Cromer that a litigant should not be denied all
access to the courts. See id.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -