UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1713
RANDY L. THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
R. HARCOURT FULTON; JAMES HAMMOND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00200-GCM)
Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Sardar Mujeeb Shah-Khan, CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Mark Weston Johnson,
HELMS, MULLISS & WICKER, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
During the course of Randy Thomas’ proceedings under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), the district court imposed a prefiling
injunction against Thomas, which prohibited him “from making any
further filings against government officials and their counsel
without first obtaining express permission from the [c]ourt.”
(R. 9 at 2). Thomas appeals the district court’s order and asserts
that the injunction is too broad. For the reasons that follow, we
vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings.
Federal courts have the authority to issue prefiling
injunctions against vexatious litigants. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.
Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Courts, however,
“should not in any way limit a litigant’s access to the courts
absent exigent circumstances, such as a litigant’s continuous abuse
of the judicial process by filing meritless and repetitive
actions.” Id. at 817-18 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The factors a district court should consider in deciding
whether to issue a prefiling injunction are:
(1) the party’s history of litigation, in particular
whether he has filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative
lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis
for pursuing the litigation, or simply intended to
harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and
other parties resulting from the party’s filings; and
(4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions.
- 2 -
Id. at 818 (citations omitted). After balancing these factors, if
a court decides that a prefiling injunction is warranted, the court
“must ensure that the injunction is narrowly tailored to fit the
specific circumstances at issue.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “A narrowly tailored injunction . . . would
address only filings in [a particular action] or related actions.”
Id. at 819. We review the imposition of a prefiling injunction for
abuse of discretion. Id. at 817.
Having reviewed the record in light of the factors
enunciated in Cromer, we agree with the district court that Thomas’
lawsuits are duplicative and vexatious; he cannot have a reasonable
expectation of prevailing; and he has caused needless expense and
burdens to other parties and the court. We note that the district
court’s order does not indicate whether the court considered the
adequacy of alternative sanctions before imposing the prefiling
injunction. In any event, we conclude that the imposition of this
particular injunction is defective for being overbroad. The
prefiling injunction prohibits Thomas from filing further civil
actions against government officials and their counsel without
permission of the district court in unrelated actions. This
language “has no boundaries.” DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144,
1148 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, the terms of the injunction are not
“narrowly tailored” to the circumstances giving rise to the
injunction. See Cromer, 390 F.3d at 819 (holding that prefiling
- 3 -
injunction barring future filings in unrelated cases in district
court constitutes overbroad and impermissible restriction).
Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate the injunction
imposed on Thomas and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. 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
- 4 -