Dora L. Adkins v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000235643-2]; granting Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [1000249774-2]. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-01023-AJT-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000338299]. Mailed to: Dora L. Adkins. [18-1102]

Appeal: 18-1102

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/30/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1102

DORA L. ADKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01023-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: July 26, 2018

Decided: July 30, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Eric Humber, OGLETREE DEAKINS
NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1102

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/30/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dora L. Adkins appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action
against Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. (“Whole Foods”) and imposing a prefiling
injunction and order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error in the court’s dismissal of Adkins’ action or its denial of relief on
reconsideration. Therefore we affirm the denial of relief in these orders for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Adkins v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No. 1:17-cv01023-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va. January 10, 2018; January 23, 2018).
In its order dismissing Adkins’ action the district court also granted Whole Foods’
motion for sanctions, enjoining Adkins from filing any further claims against the
company without leave of court. The court also expanded the scope of the prefiling
injunction to prohibit Adkins from filing claims against any defendant in the Eastern
District of Virginia.

Federal courts may issue prefiling injunctions when vexatious

conduct hinders the court from fulfilling its constitutional duty, and we review those
prefiling injunctions for abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390
F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). This “drastic remedy must be used sparingly, . . .
consistent with constitutional guarantees of due process of law and access to the courts.”
Id. Thus,
[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 [s]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

Appeal: 18-1102

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/30/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

Id. at 818. Even where a prefiling injunction has been deemed warranted pursuant to a
consideration 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. (citations omitted).
The district court appears to have considered some of the Cromer factors—
discussing Adkins’ history of filing vexations and duplicative lawsuits and her prior
action against Whole Foods—but it is not clear the court considered the other specific
factors, and it failed to properly limit the scope of the prefiling injunction to the specific
circumstances.

Id. We also note litigants are entitled to notice and opportunity to be

heard prior to imposition of a prefiling injunction. Id. at 819-20. Thus, we vacate the
portion of the court’s order imposing the prefiling injunction and remand for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, and vacate in part and remand for further
proceedings. We grant Adkins’ motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to
file a supplemental reply brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

3