In re: Lamar A. Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2159
In re: LAMAR A. WILLIAMS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-mc-00553)
Submitted: August 30, 2022 Decided: October 3, 2022
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamar A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --