Hephzibah Bates v. Charlie Dicken

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00680-REP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999678374]. Mailed to: Hephzibah Bates. [15-1640, 15-1641, 15-1642, 15-1643, 15-1644, 15-1645, 15-1646, 15-1647, 15-1648, 15-1649, 15-1650, 15-1651, 15-1652, 15-1653, 15-1654, 15-1655]

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 1 of 10

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1640

HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins Bates,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLIE DICKENS; CHARLOTTE DICKENS,
Defendants – Appellees.

No. 15-1641

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VALERY BROWN; VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC.,
Defendants – Appellees.

No. 15-1642

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 2 of 10

MELVIN HUGHES; BERNADETTE BATES THOMPSON,
Defendants – Appellees.

No. 15-1643

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
IRENE ELIZABETH JENKI BATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRENE C. DICKENS; VALERY BROWN; FAY BATES; BEVERLY MONROE;
MARY JEFFERIES; ALVIN A. BATES, JR.; BERNADETTE THOMPSON;
BARBARA BATES; BRENDA BATES,
Defendants – Appellees.

No. 15-1644

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED
STATES
Department,

DEPARTMENT

OF

Defendant – Appellee.

2

JUSTICE,

Investigators

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 3 of 10

No. 15-1645

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE,
Defendant – Appellee.

No. 15-1646

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FAY DAMON; RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT/OFFICER,
Defendants – Appellees.

No. 15-1647

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK BOSEMAN, a/k/a Charles Brown,
Defendant – Appellee.

3

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 4 of 10

No. 15-1648

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION; RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT/OFFICER,
Defendants – Appellees.

No. 15-1649

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA HOSPITALS,
Defendant – Appellee.

No. 15-1650

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant – Appellee.

4

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 5 of 10

No. 15-1651

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
US MARSHALS,
Defendant – Appellee.

No. 15-1652

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. JOHN L. NEWBY, II, Office
Department of Veterans Services,

of

the

Commissioner,

Defendant – Appellee.

No. 15-1653

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY LACKER,
Richmond,

President,

The

Federal

Defendant – Appellee.

5

Reserve

Bank

of

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 6 of 10

No. 15-1654

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY LACKER,
Richmond,

President,

The

Federal

Reserve

Bank

of

Defendant – Appellee.

No. 15-1655

HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EMPLOYEES, VIRGINIA CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00680-REP; 3:14-cv-00756-REP; 3:14-cv00763-REP; 3:14-cv-00769-REP; 3:14-cv-00770-REP; 3:14-cv-00781REP; 3:14-cv-00842-REP; 3:14-cv-00843-REP; 3:14-cv-00844-REP;
3:15-cv-00063-REP; 3:15-cv-00095-REP; 3:15-cv-00109-REP; 3:15cv-00110-REP;
3:15-cv-00193-REP;
3:15-cv-00232-REP;
3:15-cv00233-REP)

Submitted:

September 4, 2015

Decided:

6

October 15, 2015

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 7 of 10

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

7

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 8 of 10

PER CURIAM:
Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court’s order issuing
a prefiling injunction, which was ordered in response to sixteen
consolidated

complaints

filed

by

Ms.

Bates.

The

court

justifiably found those complaints to be frivolous, delusional,
and “untethered to reality.” (Ms. Bates alleges that she is the
“Fold” of the Queen of England and has been deprived of rights
due to the occupant of that fanciful position.) However, we find
that the district court’s order did not sufficiently consider
all

factors

injunction,

necessary
and

that,

for
in

the

any

issuance

case,

that

of

a

injunction

prefiling
–

which

ordered the court clerk “to accept no filings from Hephzibah
Bates” – was overbroad.
We

review

a

district

court’s

issuance

of

a

prefiling

injunction for abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.
Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, this
“drastic

remedy”

must

be

used

in

a

manner

“consistent

with

constitutional guarantees of due process of law and access to
the courts.” Id. Accordingly,
[i]n determining whether a prefiling injunction is
substantively warranted, a court must weigh all the
relevant circumstances, including (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

8

Appeal: 15-1640

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/15/2015

Pg: 9 of 10

and other parties resulting from the party's filings;
and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions.
Id. at 818. Furthermore, even where a prefiling injunction has
been deemed warranted pursuant to a consideration of all of the
above factors, “the judge must ensure that the injunction is
narrowly tailored to fit the specific circumstances at issue.
. . . Absent this narrowing, a prefiling injunction . . . will
not survive appellate review.” Id.
Here,

although

the

district

court

appears

to

have

considered the first three of the above factors, it does not
appear

to

have

considered

the

fourth

–

the

adequacy

of

alternative sanctions, such as a finding of contempt. Moreover,
the injunction is in no way narrowly tailored, as it aims to
prevent Ms. Bates from making any future filings, in related or
unrelated

cases,

in

the

Eastern

District

of

Virginia.

The

opinion states that “Bates has been forever enjoined from filing
further similar actions in this Court.” To the extent the word
“similar”

is

an

attempt

to

limit

the

reach

of

the

court’s

injunction, it is too vague to bring the injunction within the
bounds of due process. Moreover, this limiting language appears
nowhere in the text of the notice delivered to Ms. Bates, which
states

that

the

court

clerk

has

filings from Hephzibah Bates.”

9

been

ordered

“to

accept

no

Appeal: 15-1640

We

Doc: 11

vacate

Filed: 10/15/2015

and

remand

for

Pg: 10 of 10

reconsideration

in

conformance

with the guidelines set forth in Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am.,
Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004).
VACATED AND REMANDED

10