Bates v. Newby

Filing 12

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)

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