Hephzibah Bates, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins Bates v. Charlie Dickens; Charlotte Dickens

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1640
HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins Bates,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLIE DICKENS; CHARLOTTE DICKENS,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 15-1641
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VALERY BROWN; VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC.,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 15-1642
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.

-- 1 of 10 --

2
MELVIN HUGHES; BERNADETTE BATES THOMPSON,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 15-1643
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
IRENE ELIZABETH JENKI BATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRENE C. DICKENS; VALERY BROWN; FAY BATES; BEVERLY MONROE;
MARY JEFFERIES; ALVIN A. BATES, JR.; BERNADETTE THOMPSON;
BARBARA BATES; BRENDA BATES,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 15-1644
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Investigators
Department,
Defendant – Appellee.

-- 2 of 10 --

3
No. 15-1645
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 15-1646
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FAY DAMON; RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT/OFFICER,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 15-1647
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK BOSEMAN, a/k/a Charles Brown,
Defendant – Appellee.

-- 3 of 10 --

4
No. 15-1648
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION; RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT/OFFICER,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 15-1649
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA HOSPITALS,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 15-1650
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant – Appellee.

-- 4 of 10 --

5
No. 15-1651
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
US MARSHALS,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 15-1652
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. JOHN L. NEWBY, II, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Veterans Services,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 15-1653
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY LACKER, President, The Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond,
Defendant – Appellee.

-- 5 of 10 --

6
No. 15-1654
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY LACKER, President, The Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 15-1655
HEPHZIBAH BATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EMPLOYEES, VIRGINIA CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00680-REP; 3:14-cv-00756-REP; 3:14-cv-
00763-REP; 3:14-cv-00769-REP; 3:14-cv-00770-REP; 3:14-cv-00781-
REP; 3:14-cv-00842-REP; 3:14-cv-00843-REP; 3:14-cv-00844-REP;
3:15-cv-00063-REP; 3:15-cv-00095-REP; 3:15-cv-00109-REP; 3:15-
cv-00110-REP; 3:15-cv-00193-REP; 3:15-cv-00232-REP; 3:15-cv-
00233-REP)
Submitted: September 4, 2015 Decided: October 15, 2015

-- 6 of 10 --

7
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 7 of 10 --

8
PER CURIAM:
Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court’s order issuing
a prefiling injunction, which was ordered in response to sixteen
consolidated complaints filed by Ms. Bates. The court
justifiably found those complaints to be frivolous, delusional,
and “untethered to reality.” (Ms. Bates alleges that she is the
“Fold” of the Queen of England and has been deprived of rights
due to the occupant of that fanciful position.) However, we find
that the district court’s order did not sufficiently consider
all factors necessary for the issuance of a prefiling
injunction, and that, in any case, that injunction – which
ordered the court clerk “to accept no filings from Hephzibah
Bates” – was overbroad.
We review a district court’s issuance of a prefiling
injunction for abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.
Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, this
“drastic remedy” must be used in a manner “consistent with
constitutional guarantees of due process of law and access to
the courts.” Id. Accordingly,
[i]n determining whether a prefiling injunction is
substantively warranted, a court must weigh all the
relevant circumstances, including (1) the party's
history of litigation, in particular whether he has
filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits;
(2) whether the party had a good faith basis for
pursuing the litigation, or simply intended to
harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts

-- 8 of 10 --

9
and other parties resulting from the party's filings;
and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions.
Id. at 818. Furthermore, even where a prefiling injunction has
been deemed warranted pursuant to a consideration of all of the
above factors, “the judge must ensure that the injunction is
narrowly tailored to fit the specific circumstances at issue.
. . . Absent this narrowing, a prefiling injunction . . . will
not survive appellate review.” Id.
Here, although the district court appears to have
considered the first three of the above factors, it does not
appear to have considered the fourth – the adequacy of
alternative sanctions, such as a finding of contempt. Moreover,
the injunction is in no way narrowly tailored, as it aims to
prevent Ms. Bates from making any future filings, in related or
unrelated cases, in the Eastern District of Virginia. The
opinion states that “Bates has been forever enjoined from filing
further similar actions in this Court.” To the extent the word
“similar” is an attempt to limit the reach of the court’s
injunction, it is too vague to bring the injunction within the
bounds of due process. Moreover, this limiting language appears
nowhere in the text of the notice delivered to Ms. Bates, which
states that the court clerk has been ordered “to accept no
filings from Hephzibah Bates.”

-- 9 of 10 --

10
We vacate and remand for reconsideration in conformance
with the guidelines set forth in Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am.,
Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004).
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 10 of 10 --