# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 9, 2019 *

Decided May 10, 2019

Before

J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 18

‐ 2164

IN RE: CHERRON M. PHILLIPS,

Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 11 CV 776

Rubén Castillo,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

In this appeal, Cherron M. Phillips seeks review of an order restricting her filings

and access to the courthouse. During proceedings in her brother’s criminal case, Phillips

repeatedly disrupted the court and filed numerous documents in that case, even though

she was neither a party to it nor an attorney. As a result, in 2011 the Executive

Committee for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order that limited her presence

in the federal courthouse. It also “enjoined her from filing any new civil action” or

“filing documents” in any case without leave of the Committee. The order allowed her

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1No. 18

‐ 2164 Page 2

to seek its rescission after six months. After the order was issued, Phillips’s filing

misbehavior escalated. She tried to remove a different case to federal court as a delay

tactic (to avoid a money judgment against her), and filed a dozen fraudulent liens

against various government officials involved in her brother’s prosecution (a crime for

which she was convicted and is now incarcerated). Based on this misconduct, the

Executive Committee denied her motion in 2017 to rescind the restrictions. She appeals

that decision.

As a preliminary matter, we note that we have jurisdiction over this appeal

because, as we have said before, an order of the Executive Committee for the U.S.

District Court to restrict filing is a judicial action (over which we do have jurisdiction)

and not an administrative action (over which we do not). In re Chapman

, 328 F.3d 903,

904–05 (7th Cir. 2003); Matter of Palmisano

, 70 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir. 1995).

Phillips argues that the Committee’s order is invalid. She contends that its entry

violated her due

‐ process rights because it is a “contempt” order and she was not

afforded the procedural protections of a contempt proceeding. She also argues that the

order unfairly prejudices her ability to defend herself in criminal proceedings or to

challenge her incarceration.

Phillips’s arguments are unavailing. First, the order was not a contempt sanction.

It is an injunction designed to preserve judicial resources, not a sanction issued to

punish her. See Chapman

, 328 F.3d at 904. Second, the order is substantively valid. The

Executive Committee may enter orders that reasonably control and regulate the

litigation before the district court. See id. at 905; In re Davis

, 878 F.2d 211, 212–13 (7th Cir.

1989). The Committee therefore may enjoin persons with a history of disrupting the

court by requiring that their filings be screened or by limiting their time in the

courthouse—so long as doing so does not deprive that person of “meaningful access to

the courts.” Chapman

, 328 F.3d at 905. The Committee’s order explicitly preserves

Phillips’s ability “to defend herself in any criminal action,” to file “a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus or extraordinary writ,” and to seek review in “the United States Court

of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court.” Moreover, the order does not bar

Phillips from civil litigation; it requires only that her filings be screened by the

Committee to ensure that they are not frivolous. Given Phillips’s history of serious

misbehavior and frivolous findings, we conclude that the Executive Committee did not

abuse its discretion in issuing (and renewing) this order. See, e.g., id

. (upholding the

issuance of a similar Executive Order).

AFFIRMED