UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID HILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)

Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: September 22, 2022

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6223 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Hill, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s January 26, 2022, order 

imposing a prefiling injunction on Hill. Federal courts may issue prefiling injunctions 

when vexatious conduct hinders the court from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Cromer 

v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). However, before doing so, 

the district court must afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. at 819; 

accord In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982). We review the imposition of a 

prefiling injunction for abuse of discretion. Cromer, 390 F.3d at 817. 

Hill argues, in relevant part, that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

the prefiling injunction without providing timely notice of its intent to do so and affording 

Hill the opportunity to be heard on the matter. Hill acknowledges, though, that the court 

provided such notice through its December 9, 2021, order issued in a separate civil action. 

See Hill v. McNulty, No. 1:21-cv-00112-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., PACER No. 59). This 

order afforded Hill 14 days to “show[] cause as to why [Hill] should not be enjoined from 

filing future pleadings related to his 2001 criminal conviction in this Court.” Id. at 5. Hill 

contends that he did not receive this order until February 2022—well after expiration of 

the 14-day opposition period and imposition of the prefiling injunction. 

We have reviewed the relevant record materials and find that they support Hill’s 

claim that he did not receive the December 9, 2021, order in a timely manner. Thus, 

although the district court issued the proper notice, Hill did not have an actual opportunity 

to be heard prior to imposition of the prefiling injunction. Accordingly, we vacate the 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6223 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

district court’s January 26, 2022, order imposing a prefiling injunction in Hill’s criminal 

case and remand this matter for further proceedings. 

On remand, the district court should (1) reissue its notice of the court’s intent to 

impose a prefiling injunction; and (2) allow Hill an opportunity to respond. We deny Hill’s 

motion for reassignment to a different district judge and deny as unnecessary Hill’s motion 

for this court to take judicial notice of FBI documents and laboratory results. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6223 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3