recognizing that 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” and that “[c]onsiderable discretion necessarily is reposed in the district court” when it fashions a filing restriction
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that 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” and that “[c]onsiderable discretion necessarily is reposed in the district court” when it fashions a filing restriction
- holding that the district court’s injunction, restricting a prisoner from filing any case unless submitted by an attorney admitted to practice before the court, was over-broad but acknowledging that the district court had a responsibility to prevent litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on judicial machinery
- holding that an abusive litigant may be “severely restricted as to what he 28 USCA11 Case: 19-14353 Date Filed: 08/17/2021 Page: 29 of 33 may file and how he must behave in his applications for judicial relief. He just cannot be completely foreclosed from any access to the court”
- finding that although a court may not completely foreclose a litigant from access to the courts, "[t]he court has a responsibility to prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial machinery needed by others"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While agreeing with most of what is stated in the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent from the vacating of the injunctive order issued by the district court. The district court reviewed in great detail the history of some of the suits filed by Procup with an analysis of an illustrative sampling. 567 F.Supp. 146, 148-155 . After carefully weighing the importance of access to the courts, the district court placed restrictions upon future filings. I would affirm these restrictions for the reasons stated in the district court’s most thoughtful opinion.
No one person has the right to deliberately attempt to destroy the operations of the courts of our country. New of the most fundamental constitutional rights are absolute. Procup has “thumbed his nose” at every authority within his contact. He is literally playing games with the system. Such conduct should not and must not be tolerated!