Larrimore v. Williamson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6337
TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE,
Plaintiff -Appellant,
v.
ODELL WILLIAMSON; TED PARKER; DECAROL WILLIAMSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:08-cv-00008-D)
Submitted: July 18, 2008 Decided: August 5, 2008
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Timothy Bryan Larrimore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Larrimore appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), his civil
action against Odell Williamson and others in which Larrimore
sought to confiscate all of the Defendants’ possessions based on an
allegation of wrongdoing by the Defendants. He also appeals from
the district court’s order imposing sanctions and a prefiling
injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error as to the order dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we
affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court.
Larrimore v. Williamson, No. 7:08-cv-00008-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4 & 5,
2008).
We review the imposition of a prefiling injunction for
abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d
812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Federal courts may issue prefiling
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). 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 Larrimore an
-2-
opportunity to be heard, we vacate the order and remand for further
proceedings.
Accordingly, while we affirm the order dismissing the
civil action, we vacate and remand for further proceedings the
order imposing sanctions and a prefiling injunction. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
-3-