Bates v. Lacker
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
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?