Case ID: f-appx_405/html/0805-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 10-2073.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.
    Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.
    Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 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 Sin-dram’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.