Larrimore v. Hooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1327
TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE,
Plaintiff -Appellant,
v.
JACK HOOKS, JR., Judge; CHRIS BATTEN, Sheriff,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-6244
TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE,
Plaintiff -Appellant,
v.
JACK HOOKS, JR., Judge; CHRIS BATTEN, Sheriff; R. C. SOLES,
JR., Senator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:07-cv-00209-D)
Submitted: July 18, 2008 Decided: August 5, 2008
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 08-1327 vacated and remanded; No. 08-6244 affirmed as modified
by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Bryan Larrimore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-2-
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 08-6244, Larrimore appeals from the
district court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). Larrimore had alleged that a
state court judge, the sheriff, and a senator, and “all the lawyers
and judges” were “all members of a terrist (sic) organization
called the Masonic Lodge,” and they were conspiring to prevent him
from being able to file papers in the county courthouse. He
further alleged that the local government was corrupt, and the
judge, sheriff, senator, and all lawyers were stealing tax money
and allowing a drug trafficking ring to operate.
The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous,
stating that it contained only delusional and nonsensical
allegations, or lacked factual support. Because Larrimore may be
able to particularize his complaint to state non-frivolous claims
arising from the events described in the complaint, see Coleman v.
Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965), we modify the district
court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice
and affirm that disposition.
In appeal No. 08-1327, Larrimore appeals from the
district court’s order imposing sanctions and a prefiling
injunction. 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
-3-
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
opportunity to be heard, we vacate the order and remand for further
proceedings.
In conclusion, we affirm the order dismissing Larrimore’s
complaint, as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without
prejudice, and we vacate the sanctions and prefiling injunction
order and remand for further proceedings. We deny Larrimore’s
motion to transfer all his cases to this court, and 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.
No. 08-1327 VACATED AND REMANDED
No. 08-6244 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
-4-