United States v. Akeem Gumbs ( 2023 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 23-1309
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AKEEM R. GUMBS,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. No. 3-11-cr-00021-001)
District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
December 11, 2023
Before: HARDIMAN, KRAUSE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 14, 2023)
____________
OPINION*
____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Akeem Gumbs appeals the District Court’s order that he obtain leave of court
before filing anything relating to his criminal convictions. We will affirm.
I
Gumbs has filed over 60 motions since 2018, repeatedly challenging his criminal
convictions in United States v. Gumbs, Dist. Dkt. No. 3-11-cr-00021-001 (D. V.I.). Dist.
Ct. Dkt. No. 444, p. 1–4. Those filings repeat arguments we have deemed frivolous many
times.1 In re Gumbs, 697 F. App’x 137, 138 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam); In re Gumbs,
726 F. App’x 166, 167 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam); In re Gumbs, 747 F. App’x 916, 917
(3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Inundated by his meritless claims, the District Court ordered
Gumbs to show cause why he should not be enjoined from filing new documents relating
to his convictions. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 445, p. 2. Gumbs responded that an injunction was
unnecessary because he does not intend to file any more motions. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No.
451, p. 1.
Unpersuaded, the Court finalized its order in February 2023, enjoining Gumbs
from “filing any section 2255 motion, pretrial or post-conviction motion, habeas petition,
section 1983 claim, or motion in connection therewith, relating to” his criminal
convictions without first seeking leave of court. ECF No. 1-2, p. 4. To make a filing,
Gumbs must first certify that his claims “are not barred by the Antiterrorism and
1
Most of Gumbs’ arguments depend on a mistaken belief that his initial proceeding in
magistrate court precluded his subsequent trial in the District Court. See, e.g., Dist. Ct.
Dkt. No. 331. Other arguments stem from his misunderstanding of various rules of
evidence. See, e.g., Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 334.
2
Effective Death Penalty Act’s prohibition on successive filings; or in the case of a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, that his motion presents new, nonfrivolous
reasons for granting relief from judgment.” Id. Gumbs appealed. ECF No. 1-1.
II2
We review the District Court’s order for abuse of discretion. Brow v. Farrelly, 994
F.2d 1027, 1032 (3d Cir. 1993). Access to the courts is “a fundamental tenet of our
judicial system,” so litigiousness alone does not justify the “extreme remedy” of limiting
a party’s access. In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445–46 (3d Cir. 1982). But when a litigant
abuses the system through a pattern of meritless filings, a court has authority under the
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to restrict the litigant’s access by issuing a prefiling
injunction. See id. There are three requirements for such injunctive orders, see Brow, 994
F.2d at 1038, all of which are satisfied here.
First, the order must be warranted by exigent circumstances, such as “a continuous
pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation.” Oliver, 682 F.2d at 446. The District
Court found that Gumbs’ many baseless filings over several years created exigent
circumstances. The record amply supports that finding.
Second, the litigant must have notice and an opportunity to respond before the
proposed order goes into effect. See Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir.
1987) (per curiam). Gumbs was given notice and responded before the order went into
effect.
2
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
3
Third, the order should be no more restrictive than necessary to prevent continued
frivolous filings. See Chipps v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. Of Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73
(3d Cir. 1989). The District Court’s order is appropriately narrow. While it limits Gumbs’
access to the courts, it applies only to filings involving specific prior convictions and still
allows such filings with leave of court.
Orders like the one at issue are unfortunate. But Gumbs’ barratry left the District
Court no choice but to enter an injunction. We will affirm.
4