Stone v. South Central Regional Jail ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6399
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL; CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER BUCKNER, Booking/Holding,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6400
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MS. PERRY, Counselor of South Central Regional
    Jail,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6401
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KANAWHA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; J. L.
    WALKER,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6402
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6403
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RICK HALLORICK, Magistrate,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6404
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    - 2 -
    versus
    JEFF STEWART, Public Defender,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6405
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KRT SUPERVISOR WARNER,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6406
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DEPUTY   BRALEY,  Kanawha   County       Sheriff’s
    Department and Quincy Detachment,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6407
    - 3 -
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMANDER HILL, West Virginia State Police;
    TROOPER   ZERKLE; SERGEANT  FRYE;  SERGEANT
    BOWMAN; MARK JOHNS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6408
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SOUTH CHARLESTON CITY POLICE      DEPARTMENT,
    Patrol Division; OFFICER EARY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6409
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SERGEANT JARRELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, South
    Central Regional Jail,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    - 4 -
    No. 04-6410
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DARRELL S. TOWNSEND; LAURIE A. TOWNSEND,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6411
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DONNA KAY MURPHY; POCA POST OFFICE; LAURIE
    TOWNSEND; DARRELL TOWNSEND,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6412
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL CLIFFORD, Prosecutor,
    - 5 -
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6413
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LARRY GLASSBURG, SR.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6414
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DANNY JONES, Mayor or former Kanawha County
    Sheriff,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6415
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    - 6 -
    WILLIAM LESTER,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6416
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DOUGLAS WENDEL ARTRIP; LISA FARRELL; DENNIS
    ARTRIP; MARY ANN ARTRIP,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6417
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ADMINISTRATOR MURRAY, Kanawha County and State
    Court,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6418
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    - 7 -
    versus
    MEREDITH PERRY, Counselor; UNITED STATES
    SECRET SERVICE; SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL;
    DAVID   WALKER,  Psychiatrist;   CORRECTIONAL
    OFFICER; JOHN MCKAY, Administrator; JEFF
    STEWART, Lawyer; PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-6419
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 04-6420
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DEPUTY   LANE;     KANAWHA   COUNTY     SHERIFF’S
    DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    - 8 -
    No. 04-6421
    TAMMY M. STONE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LIEUTENANT ROGERS, Chief Correctional Officer,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
    District Judge. (CA-03-2408-2; CA-03-2431-2; CA-03-2437-2; CA-03-
    2438-2; CA-03-2439-2; CA-03-2440-2; CA-03-2454-2; CA-03-2455-2; CA-
    03-2456-2; CA-03-2457-2; CA-03-2458-2; CA-03-2474-2; CA-03-2475-2;
    CA-03-2477-2; CA-03-2478-2; CA-03-2479-2; CA-03-2480-2; CA-03-2481-
    2; CA-03-2483-2; CA-03-2484-2; CA-03-2491-2; CA-03-2492-2; CA-03-
    2497-2)
    Submitted:   July 9, 2004                 Decided:   August 9, 2004
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tammy M. Stone, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 9 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Tammy M. Stone appeals the district court’s dismissal of
    her suits and entry of an order enjoining her from proceeding in
    forma pauperis in any future civil action.
    After reviewing the record, we affirm the dismissal of
    Stone’s suits on the reasoning of the district court.                  We affirm,
    as modified, the district court’s entry of an injunction against
    Stone.
    Federal courts have both the inherent power and the
    constitutional     obligation     to    protect   their       jurisdiction     from
    conduct   that   impairs   their       ability   to   carry    out   Article    III
    functions.      In re Martin-Trigona, 
    737 F.2d 1254
    , 1261 (2d Cir.
    1984); see Procup v. Strickland, 
    792 F.2d 1069
    , 1074 (11th Cir.
    1986); Graham v. Riddle, 
    554 F.2d 133
    , 134-35 (4th Cir. 1977).
    Given Stone’s history of abuse of the legal system, we find that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining Stone
    from future filings.       Nonetheless, the district court must take
    into account that no person should ever be denied his right to the
    processes of the court.        In re Green, 
    598 F.2d 1126
    , 1127 (8th Cir.
    1979).    Therefore, we modify the district court's order to read,
    “Tammy Stone is hereby enjoined from proceeding in forma pauperis
    in any civil action without first obtaining leave of court.”
    We grant Stone’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis.
    We   dispense    with   oral   argument     because    the     facts   and   legal
    - 10 -
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
    - 11 -