Bates v. Dickens et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/25/2016. Clerk mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff. (nbrow)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division lL AUG 2 6 20!6 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14cv680 v. CHARLIE DICKENS, et al. Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv756 VALERY BROWN, et al., Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14cv763 v. MELVIN HUGHES, et al., Defendants. IRENE ELIZABETH JENKINS BATES, HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14cv769 v. IRENE C. DICKENS, et al., Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14cv770 v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Investigators Department, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv781 UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, Defendant. 2 HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv842 FAY DAMON, et al., Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv843 CHADWICK BOSEMAN a/k/a CHARLES BROWN, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv844 EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants. 3 HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15cv63 MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA HOSPITALS, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15v95 CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15v109 US MARSHALS, Defendant. 4 HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:15cvll0 v. JOHN L. NEWBY, II, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Veterans Services, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15cvl93 JEFFREY LACKER, President, The Federal Reserve Bank of Virginia, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15cv232 JEFFREY LACKER, President, The Federal Reserve Bank of Virginia, Defendant. 5 HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:15cv233 EMPLOYEES, VIRGINIA CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court as the result of an ORDER entered herein on April 29, 2016 (ECF No. 10 in 3:14cv756, 3:15cv95, 3:15cv109, 3:14cv842, 3:14cv843, 3:14cv844, 3:15cv63, 3:15cvl10, 3:15cv193, 3:15cv232, and 3:15cv233; ECF No. 11 in 3:14cv680, 3:14cv763, 3:14cv769, 3:14cv770, 3:14cv781), by and which the plaintiff, Hephzibah Bates, was ordered to show cause, by May 31, 2016, why the Court should not impose sanctions as an alternative to the injunction previously issued by this Court which was vacated by a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on October 15, 2015. Among the sanctions under consideration are: (1) filing entry of an injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from any action that involves the subject matter Complaints filed by the plaintiff in these sixteen cases: Civil Action Number Case 6 of the 3:14cv680 3:14cv756 3:14cv763 3:14cv769 Bates v. Dickens, et al. Bates v. Brown, et al. Bates v. Hughes, et al. Bates v. Dickens, et al. Bates v. United States Department of Justice Bates v. United States Postal Office Bates v. Damon, et al. Bates v. Boseman Bates v. Equifax Credit Union, et al. Bates v. Medical College of Virginia Hospitals Bates v. Clerk, Supreme Court of Virginia Bates v. US Marshals Bates v. Newby Bates v. Lacker Bates v. Lacker Bates v. Employees, Virginia Capitol Police Department (2) filing 3:14cv770 3:14cv781 3:14cv842 3:14cv843 3:14cv844 3:15cv63 3:15cv95 3:15cv109 3:15cv110 3:15cv193 3:15cv232 3:15cv233 entry of an injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from any Complaints action filed dismissed cases that involves the by the plaintiff in subject the matter following of the previously (all of which were dismissed with prejudice as delusional and frivolous and none of which have been reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and some of which have been affirmed by that Court) : Civil Action Number Case Bates Bates Bates Bates Bates Bates Bates Bates v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. Nunley Nunley, et al. Queen Elizabeth II, et al. McDonnell Obama Fallon Nunley Nunley 7 3:12cv211 3:12cv269 3:12cv519 3:12cv643 3:12cv649 3:13cv300 3:13cv642 3:13cv648 Bates v. Thompson Bates v. Thomas Bates v. CBS News Bates v. Virginia State Police De:eartment Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bates v. Jenkins Bates v. Nunley Bates v. Nunley (3) 3:14cv65 3:14cv164 3:14cv165 3:14cv193 3:14cv320 3:14cv322 3:14cv380 3:14cv381 entry of an ORDER prohibiting the filing of any action in this Court involving any other topic without prior approval of the Court; and (4) for imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 the filing of these delusional actions: 3:14cv763, 3:14cv769, 3:14cv844, 3: 15cv193, 3: 15cv232 has frivolous, held frivolous, vexatious Civil Action Numbers 3: 14cv680, 3:14cv843, Appeals sixteen 3:14cv770, 3:15cv63, and 3: 15cv233 that the 3: 14cv756, 3:14cv842, 3:14cv781, 3:15cv95, (as court 3:15cv109, to which justifiably and 3:15cv110, the Court of "to be found delusional and 'untethered to reality'") and an Order prohibiting the filing of any action in this Court on any subject until that sum is paid in full. On May 16, 2016, Bates submitted her response to the April 29, not 2016 Order to Show Cause in which she stated that she did think "permission ones." any to (ECF sanction keep No. these 11 in should be imposed and asked case files active, and any Civil 8 Action 3:14cv756, for Future 3:14cv769, 3:14cv770, 3:14cv781, 3:15cv95, 3:14cv842, 3:14cv843, 3:15cv109, 3:15cv110, 3:14cv844, 3:15cv193, 3:15cv63, 3:15cv232 and 3:15cv233; ECF No. 12 in 3:14cv680 and 3:14cv763). BACKGROUND For filed several years, the plaintiff, in this Court many civil actions Hephzibah that Bates, has are based on the allegation that she is the "Fold" of the Queen of England whose undefined rights as "Fold" have been trenched upon by state and federal agencies, corporations, the Governor of Virginia, the President of the United States, and ordinary citizens about whom she has heard or read or encountered. All complaints have something else in common: they have been adjudged either by this Court or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reality. or both to be frivolous, delusional, and untethered to In the past, Bates has been accorded In Forma Pauperis status; the complaints have been filed, and then the Complaints have been dismissed. The nonsensical filings made by Bates have burdened the Off ice of the Clerk of this Court and have consumed significant judicial resources. In an effort to put a stop to the constant burden visited upon the Court and the judicial system and to end Bates' vexatious use of the judicial system, Bates from filing actions of the 9 same ilk the Court enjoined and with similar delusional Action allegations. Nos. (ECF No. 3:14cvl64, 5, May 3:14cvl63, 15, 2015, in Civil 3:14cv320; 3:14cvl93; 3:14cv233; 3:14cv380; and 3:14cv381). Bates was not deterred. cases. cases Indeed, (Civil all of since March 2016, Bates has filed five more new Action Nos. 3:16cv698). 1 She thereafter filed these sixteen 3:16cv694; 3:16cv696; 3:16cv697; With the exception of Civil Action No. those cases are based on allegations and 3:16cv695, involving the claimed status of "Fold" of the Queen of England and the alleged deprivation of "Fold." to which she claims because she is The proffered Complaint in Civil Action No. is different, President analyze rights but equally nonsensical. John the F. time Kennedy from Mr. alive and asks Office Barak Obama' s Office" President existence unspecified 3: 16cv695 It alleges that former Kennedy's President to of is the constitutional as "the Court United to States to determine the "loopholes." This is but the most recent example of the nonsensical papers that Bates has for several years tendered for filing in this Court. The injunction order that was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was entered after Bates had filed in this Court the thirty-two (32) identified cases in These cases previously had been received on March 22, 2016, June 20, 2016, June 21, 2016, August 11, 2016, and August 11, 2016, respectively, but were not docketed until reviewed by the Court. All were docketed on August 22, 2016. 1 10 paragraphs (1) and (2) above. with prejudice, delusional. of the having been Circuit's affirmed that Circuit injunction, this found remand each 'untethered to reality.'" Fourth found to have been frivolous and And, as to the sixteen cases which are the subject Fourth actually All of those cases were dismissed the "frivolous, Fourth Circuit delusional, and The remand was ordered because the that, Court was order, had before not entering adequately the pre-filing considered the adequacy of alternative sanctions and because the injunction was not narrowly tailored. DISCUSSION In Cromer v. (4th Kraft Foods N. Cir. the 2004), United Am., States Inc., Court 390 F.3d 812, of Appeals for 817 the Fourth Circuit held that: [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 and other parties resulting from the party's filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions. Id. at 818. In its remand order, the Fourth Circuit affirmed that this Court had satisfied the first three Cromer factors. 11 Thus, it is settled that Bates has a history of vexatious litigation in this Court; that duplicative Bates had no good litigation that she faith has basis filed for pursuing and here; the the that frivolous and delusional filings by Bates placed a heavy burden The Court reiterates those on the Court's limited resources. findings, and notes that, persisted in her burdensome, new actions, following the vexatious remand, Bates conduct by filing all of which are utterly frivolous, has five delusional and untethered to reality and four of which are predicated on Bates' oft-rejected England theory (whatever that that she is may mean) the "Fold" whose of rights the as Queen "Fold" of have somehow been offended. As an alternative to a pre-filing injunction, the Court has considered the possibility of charging Bates with contempt, the Fourth Court, Circuit's remand order suggests. That, to as this seems to be a harsh alternative to apply to someone who obviously is delusional. A pre-filing injunction is certainly a fairer alternative than a contempt citation. The Court previously has tried to deter Bates by issuing a written warning from the Court. effect. many E.g., similar Bates v. delusional She has been warned, but to no McDonnell, actions five after the remand order. 3:12cv643. since the She has warning, filed including A pre-filing injunction will have greater effect than the unheeded warnings. 12 Financial sanctions are a possible alternative sanction as well. In Bates has limited financial resources. Form a Pauperis Application shows Her most recent that Bates receives $1,200.00 per month from social security and payments of $16.00 per month from Henrico Social Services. Her expenses total $675.35 per month. That leaves Bates with disposable income of $540.65 per month. Accordingly, the record shows that Bates can afford to pay the filing fee of $400.00, if, of course, she does not engage in the kind of serial filings 2 that she has in the past. If Bates paid the filing fee for a single case, she would be left with disposable income of $140.65 for the month in which she filed. In the past, the Court has attempted to accord Bates leniency in deciding whether to grant In Forma Pauperis status. However, there is no right to In Forma Pauper is status. And, the Court finds that Bates has forfeited this discretionary benefit because she has habitually abused it in the filing of frivolous, shall when not delusional and henceforth be pursuing claims vexatious entitled to that are more Thus, litigation. In of Forma the Pauperis same Bates status frivolous, delusional and vexatious cases that have been rejected by this As an example, Bates' most recent filings have been on June 21, 2016, June 20, 2016, and two on August 11, 2016. Those cases are not the subject of this Memorandum Opinion but they are illustrative of Bates' prolific filing habits. And, she could not, of course, afford to pay two filings fees in June and then two in August. 2 13 Court and the Court of Appeals in the cases identified paragraphs (1) and (2) above, to wit: Civil Action Number Case Bates v. Nunley Bates v. Nunley, et al. Bates v. Queen Elizabeth II, et al. Bates v. McDonnell Bates v. Obama Bates v. Fallon Bates v. Nunley Bates v. Nunley Bates v. Thompson Bates v. Thomas Bates v. CBS News Bates v. Virginia State Police Department Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bates v. Jenkins Bates v. Nunley Bates v. Nunley Bates v. Dickens, et al. Bates v. Brown, et al. Bates v. Hughes, et al. Bates v. Dickens, et al. Bates v. United States Department of Justice Bates v. United States Postal Office Bates v. Damon, et al. Bates v. Boseman Bates v. Equifax Credit Union, et al. Bates v. Medical College of Virginia Hospitals Bates v. Clerk, Supreme Court of Virginia Bates v. US Marshals Bates v. Newby Bates v. Lacker 14 3:12cv211 3:12cv269 3:12cv519 3:12cv643 3:12cv649 3:13cv300 3:13cv642 3:13cv648 3:14cv65 3:14cv164 3:14cv165 3:14cv193 3:14cv320 3:14cv322 3:14cv380 3:14cv381 3:14cv680 3:14cv756 3:14cv763 3:14cv769 3:14cv770 3:14cv781 3:14cv842 3:14cv843 3:14cv844 3:15cv63 3:15cv95 3:15cv109 3:15cv110 3:15cv193 in Bates v. Lacker Bates v. Employees, Virginia Capitol Police Department Also, monetary filing the record penalty numerous adjudicated as Bates for has appear in because a the to predicated frivolous forfeited that failing cases status Pauperis shows 3:15cv233 3 Bates heed on can theories above cases identified that concludes that it be is given that In the not impose a monetary sanction to be paid as set necessary a Forma that cases, imposed as below, been theories (32) a and have accorded involve pay warnings that thirty-two pre-filing injunction will to However, and delusional. future afford previous the privilege of being for Court 3:15cv232 and forth also condition to to any future filings. Finally, frivolous, given delusional, Bates' demonstrated propensity to file and vexatious litigation and her refusal to heed previous warnings, a pre-filing injunction is necessary. Therefore, Bates will be permanently enjoined from filing in this Court, any case without first tendering a Motion For Leave To File A Complaint, accompanied by the proffered Complaint, for review by a filing judge of this Court to assure actions on the basis of allegations that Bates is not that are, or that The Court will consider de novo any application for In Forma Pauperis status in any case not involving the theories of the thirty-two (32) cases listed above. 3 15 previously have been determined to be, frivolous, delusional, or vexatious. CONCLUSION This burden process combination on the Clerk complaints of and based sanctions should the by on Court theories previously been rejected as fanciful, foreclose having and to notions further review that and have delusional and untethered to reality, and it will assure that any new filings are based on colorable grounds for relief. At the same time, Bates will not be subject to the harsh sanction of contempt. able to prosecute any non-frivolous, should have one. The Clerk is And, she will be non-delusional case if she An appropriate Order will be issued. directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to the plaintiff. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: August ~, 2016 16

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?