Opinion
21-2159
10-03-2022
In re: LAMAR A. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Lamar A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 30, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-mc-00553)
Lamar A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Lamar A. Williams appeals from the district court's order limiting Williams' access to the district court due to his repeated inappropriate communication with the court. We affirm.
We review a district court's imposition of filing limitations for an abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). "[T]he All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) . . . grants federal courts the authority to limit access to the courts by vexatious and repetitive litigants." Id.; see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991) (recognizing, among federal court's inherent powers, "the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process"). The limitation must be "narrowly tailored to fit the specific circumstances at issue," id., and may not issue unless the party to be sanctioned has been provided both "notice and an opportunity to be heard," id. at 819.
Williams was warned in other cases before the district court that repeated filings could result in an order limiting his ability to file, was previously barred from communicating with the district court other than by written, properly filed motions, and was convicted in 2018 of criminal contempt for violating the court's order regarding filing procedures. Given that there was a clear escalation of warnings and restrictions on Williams' ability to file, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Williams' access to the court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We deny Williams' motions to stay the district court's order pending appeal, to expedite our decision on his motion to stay, for emergency injunctive relief, and for sanctions, and we grant Williams' motion to amend his motion to expedite. 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.
AFFIRMED.