UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY CARNESS AUTRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-6701
PHYLLIS B. WOODS; RICHARD HEATH;
CHARLES G. RAYNOR, SR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-40-5-CT-F)
Submitted: June 20, 1996
Decided: July 8, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Timothy Carness Autry, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Autry, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the order of the
district court granting the State's motion to impose a prefiling injunc-
tion in future cases. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The imposition of a prefiling injunction was proper on the facts
presented. It is clear that federal courts have the power and constitu-
tional obligation to issue such injunctions where vexatious conduct
hinders the court from fulfilling its constitutional duty.1 Of course, a
court imposing such an injunction must be careful not to order condi-
tions that effectively deny access to the courts. 2 We are limited to
deciding whether the district court abused its discretion,3 and we hold
that the injunction was proper. It is clear that Autry's access to the
courts is not denied as he can file lawsuits with the leave of court and
an accompanying affidavit. This is a permissible condition on his
right to access.4 Furthermore, several factors suggest that the injunc-
tion was warranted: Autry has a lengthy history of frivolous lawsuits,
often involving the same issues; Autry acted in bad faith by harassing
and abusing the Defendants under the guise of litigation; and Autry
has caused needless expense and burdens on Defendants, the district
court, and this court.5 Therefore, it is clear that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in enjoining Autry.
_________________________________________________________________
1 See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (in
banc); Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977).
2 Procup, 792 F.2d at 1071; see also In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 786
(D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam).
3 Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074; Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of
Commerce, 705 F.2d 1515, 1524 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1081 (1984).
4 Procup, 792 F.2d at 1072-73.
5 See Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1099 (1987).
2
Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3