Sindram v. Harrington , 405 F. App'x 805 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2073
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA L. HARRINGTON; DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor;
HON. GERALD BRUCE LEE; PHYLLIS T. WALTON; LISA GRAYSON; U.S.
MARSHAL SERVICE; JOHN HACKMAN,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s order
imposing a pre-filing injunction. We review the imposition of a
pre-filing injunction for abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft
Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Federal
courts may issue pre-filing injunctions when vexatious conduct
hinders the court from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Id.;
Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 1986)
(en banc) (per curiam). Before enjoining the filing of further
actions, however, the district court must afford the litigant
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cromer, 390 F.3d at 819;
In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982). Here, the
district court sua sponte issued the injunction. Because the
court imposed the injunction without affording Sindram an
opportunity to be heard, we grant Sindram’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal, vacate the district court’s order,
and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2