Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bates v. Dickens

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

August 25, 2016

HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLIE DICKENS, et al. Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
VALERY BROWN, et al., Defendants HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
MELVIN HUGHES, et al., Defendants. IRENE ELIZABETH JENKINS BATES, HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
IRENE C. DICKENS, et al., Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Investigators Department, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
FAY DAMON, et al., Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
CHADWICK BOSEMAN a/k/a CHARLES BROWN, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL COLLEGE OF VIRGINIA HOSPITALS, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
US MARSHALS, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN L. NEWBY, II, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Veterans Services, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY LACKER, President, The Federal Reserve Bank of Virginia, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY LACKER, President, The Federal Reserve Bank of Virginia, Defendant. HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff,
v.
MPLOYEES, VIRGINIA CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court as the result of an ORDER entered herein on April 29, 2016 (ECF No. 10 in 3:14cv756, 3:14cv842, 3:14cv843, 3:14cv844, 3:15cv63, 3:15cv95, 3:15cvl0 9, 3:15cvll0, 3:15cvl93, 3:15cv232, and 3:15cv233; ECF No. 11 in 3:14cv680, 3:14cv763, 3:14cv769, 3:14cv770, and 3:14cv781), by which the plaintiff, Hephzibah Bates, was ordered to show cause, by May 31, 2016, why the Court should not impose sanctions as an alternative to the injunction previously issued by this Court which was vacated by a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on October 15, 2015. Among the sanctions under consideration are:

         (1) entry of an injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from filing any action that involves the subject matter of the Complaints filed by the plaintiff in these sixteen cases:

Case

Civil Action Number

Bates v. Dickens, et al.

3:14cv680

Bates v. Brown, et al.

3:14cv756

Bates v. Hughes, et al.

3:14cv763

Bates v. Dickens, et al,

3:14cv7 69

Bates v. United States Department of Justice

3:14cv770

Bates v. United States Postal Office

3:14cv781

Bates v. Damon, et al.

3:14cv842

Bates v. Boseman

3:14cv843

Bates v. Equifax Credit Union, et al.

3:14cv844

Bates v. Medical College of Virginia Hospitals

3:15cv63

Bates v. Clerk, Supreme Court of Virginia

3:15cv95

Bates v. U.S. Marshals

3:15cvl09

Bates v. Newby

3:15cv110

Bates v. Lacker

3:15cvl93

Bates v. Lacker

3:15cv232

Bates v. Employees, Virginia Capitol Police Department

3:15cv233

         (2) entry of an injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from filing any action that involves the subject matter of the Complaints filed by the plaintiff in the following previously dismissed cases (all of which were dismissed with prejudice as delusional and frivolous and none of which have been reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and some of which have been affirmed by that Court):

Case

Civil Action Number

Bates v. Nunley

3:12cv211

Bates v. Nunley, et al.

3:12cv269

Bates v. Queen Elizabeth II, et al.

3:12cv519

Bates v. McDonnell

3:12cv643

Bates v. Obama

3:12cv649

Bates v. Fallon

3:13cv300

Bates v. Nunley

3:13cv642

Bates v. Nunley

3:13cv648

Bates v. Thompson

3:14cv65

Bates v. Thomas

3:14cvl64

Bates v. CBS News

3:14cvl65

Bates v. Virginia State Police Department

3:14cvl93

Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

3:14cv320

Bates v. Jenkins

3:14cv322

Bates v. Nunley

3:14cv380

Bates v. Nunley

3:14cv381

         (3) entry of an ORDER prohibiting the filing of any action in this Court involving any other topic without prior approval of the Court; and

         (4) imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 for the filing of these sixteen frivolous, vexatious and delusional actions: Civil Action Numbers 3:14cv680, 3:14cv756, 3:14cv7 63, 3:14cv7 69, 3:14cv770, 3:14cv781, 3:14cv842, 3:14cv84 3, 3:14cv844, 3:15cv63, 3:15cv95, 3:15cvl09, 3:15cvll0, 3:15cvl93, 3:15cv232 and 3:15cv233 (as to which the Court of Appeals has held that the court justifiably found "to be frivolous, delusional and “untethered to reality'") and an Order prohibiting the filing of any action in this Court on any subject until that sum is paid in full.

         On May 16, 2016, Bates submitted her response to the April 29, 2016 Order to Show Cause in which she stated that she did not think any sanction should be imposed and asked for "permission to keep these case files active, and any Future ones." (ECF No. 11 in Civil Action 3:14cv756, 3:14cv769, 3:14cv770, 3:14cv781, 3:14cv8 42, 3:14cv843, 3:14cv84 4, 3:15cv63, 3:15cv95, 3:15cvl09, 3:15cvll0, 3:15cvl93, 3:15cv232 and 3:15cv233; ECF No. 12 in 3:14cv680 and 3:14cv763).

         BACKGROUND

         For several years, the plaintiff, Hephzibah Bates, has filed in this Court many civil actions that are based on the allegation that she is the "Fold" of the Queen of England whose undefined rights as "Fold" have been trenched upon by state and federal agencies, corporations, the Governor of Virginia, the President of the United States, and ordinary citizens about whom she has heard or read or encountered. All complaints have something else in common: they have been adjudged either by this Court or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, or both to be frivolous, delusional, and untethered to reality. In the past, Bates has been accorded In Forma Pauperis status; the complaints have been filed, and then the Complaints have been dismissed.

         The nonsensical filings made by Bates have burdened the Office of the Clerk of this Court and have consumed significant judicial resources. In an effort to put a stop to the constant burden visited upon the Court and the judicial system and to end Bates' vexatious use of the judicial system, the Court enjoined Bates from filing actions of the same ilk and with similar delusional allegations. (ECF No. 5, May 15, 2015, in Civil Action Nos. 3:14cvl64, 3:14cvl63, 3:14cvl93; 3:14cv320; 3:14cv233; 3:14cv380; and 3:14cv381).

         Bates was not deterred. She thereafter filed these sixteen cases. Indeed, since March 2016, Bates has filed five more new cases (Civil Action Nos. 3:16cv694; 3:16cv696; 3:16cv697; and 3:16cv698).[1] With the exception of Civil Action No. 3:16cv695, all of those cases are based on allegations involving the claimed status of "Fold" of the Queen of England and the alleged deprivation of rights to which she claims because she is the "Fold." The proffered Complaint in Civil Action No. 3:16cv695 is different, but equally nonsensical. It alleges that former President John F. Kennedy is alive and asks "the Court to analyze the time from Mr. Kennedy's Office as United States President to President Barak Obama's Office" to determine the existence of unspecified constitutional "loopholes." This is but the most recent example of the nonsensical papers that Bates has for several years tendered for filing in this Court.

         The injunction order that was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was entered after Bates had filed in this Court the thirty-two (32) identified cases in paragraphs (1) and (2) above. All of those cases were dismissed with prejudice, having been found to have been frivolous and delusional. And, as to the sixteen cases which are the subject of the Fourth Circuit's remand order, the Fourth Circuit actually affirmed that each was "frivolous, delusional, and 'untethered to reality.''' The remand was ordered because the Fourth Circuit found that, before entering ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.