UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 99-2511

KOURY CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

No. 99-2512

Petitioner-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CA-97-1028, MISC-99-71)

Submitted: February 29, 2000

Decided: April 10, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

No. 99-2511 affirmed and No. 99-2512 affirmed as modified by

unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer,

Laura Deddish Burton, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE,

L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals two

district court orders. In No. 99-2511, Armstrong appeals the district

court order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying leave of court to commence a lawsuit against Koury Corporation

and several of its employees (collectively "Koury"). Because Armstrong's proposed complaint was frivolous, we affirm the court's

order.

In No. 99-2512, Armstrong appeals a district court order that (1)

denied Armstrong leave of court to file a complaint against Koury,

and (2) amended a June 1998 prefiling injunction. Because Armstrong's proposed complaint was frivolous, we affirm that portion of

the court's order denying Armstrong leave of court to file a complaint

against Koury. For the reasons that follow, we affirm as modified that

portion of the court's order that amended the June 1998 prefiling

injunction.

Federal courts have the authority to enjoin litigants from abusing

the judicial process. "Federal courts have both the inherent power and

the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct

which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions." In re

Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984); see Graham v.

Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 134-35 (4th Cir. 1977). Prefiling injunctions

should be "tailored to the specific circumstances presented." Cok v.

Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993). No

person "shall ever be denied his right to the processes of the court."

In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126, 1127 (8th Cir. 1979).

In the instant case, the amended prefiling injunction totally restricts

Armstrong's access to the federal courts with regard to any action,

including actions unrelated to Koury. Although we agree with the dis-

 2
trict court that Armstrong has abused the judicial process by filing

multiple lawsuits against Koury arising out of the same incidents, the

amended prefiling injunction was too broad because it totally

restricted Armstrong's access to the federal courts with regard to any

action against any defendant until he paid costs and attorneys fees to

Koury. See Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 410 (1st Cir. 1985)

("if an injunction against future litigation were couched in overly

broad terms, this could impermissibly infringe upon a litigator's right

of access to the courts").

Thus, pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C.§ 2106 (1994), we

modify that portion of the district court's October 1, 1999, order that

amended the June 1998 prefiling injunction to read on page 2 as follows (modification in italics):

The clerk of this court shall, without submission to the court

and without further direction, return to Arthur O. Armstrong

any attempted filings by Arthur O. Armstrong, or anyone on

his behalf, against Koury Corporation, the Holiday Inn, or

its employees, until Mr. Armstrong submits proof that he has

paid the court-ordered sum of $4,725.00 to Koury Corporation. The June 12, 1998, injunction remains intact and

Arthur O. Armstrong must still seek leave of court prior to

commencing any federal lawsuit.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order in No. 99-2511

and affirm as modified the district court's order in No. 99-2512. 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.

No. 99-2511 - AFFIRMED

No. 99-2512 - AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

 3