Joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Comfort Inn of Washington, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Clerk, United States District Court, Defendant-appellee.in Re Joseph N. Briggs, Petitioner.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Automobile Club of Maryland, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. City of Baltimore, Department of Health, Bureau of Foodcontrol, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Yeungs House, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. B & N Park Circle Tv, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Murry's Steaks, Inc., Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ace Auto Seat Covers, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Doctor Nootheti, M.d., Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Court Commissioner's Office, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Maryland Division of Parole and Probation, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. 7-11 Southland Corporation, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Park Circle Amoco, Defendant-appellee.joseph N. Briggs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Teresa A. Hawkins-briggs, Defendant-appellee, 923 F.2d 847 (4th Cir. 1991)

Joseph N. Briggs appeals from the district court's orders dismissing eighteen civil complaints. These cases, consolidated on appeal under the lead case, No. 90-1066, Briggs v. Comfort Inn, were dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Our review of the record and the opinions of the district court discloses that the appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Briggs v. Comfort Inn, CA-90-1828-JH (D. Md. July 19, 1990); Briggs v. Clerk, United States District Court, CA-90-1827-JH (D. Md. July 20, 1990; Briggs v. Automobile Club of Maryland, CA-90-1815-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., CA-90-1813-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. City of Baltimore, CA-90-1866-JH (D. Md. July 19, 1990); Briggs v. Yeungs House, CA-90-1865-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., CA-90-1862-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. B & N Park Circle TV, CA-90-1816-JH (D. Md. July 27, 1990); Briggs v. Murry's Steaks, Inc., CA-90-1812-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Ace Auto Seat Covers, CA-90-1814-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, CA-90-1826-JH (D. Md. July 16, 1990); Briggs v. Nootheti, CA-90-1853-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., CA-90-1864-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Court Commissioner's Office, CA-90-1887-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Maryland Div. of Parole & Probation, CA-90-1877-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. 7-11 Southland Corp., CA-90-1856-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Park Circle Amoco, CA-90-1855-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990); Briggs v. Hawkins-Briggs, CA-90-1829-JH (D. Md. July 17, 1990).

Briggs also appeals from the district court's order imposing a prefiling injunction on him in case No. 90-1068, In re Joseph N. Briggs. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.

Prefiling injunctions such as the one issued in this case should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. However, the courts are not without authority to issue prefiling injunctions where conduct of litigants or potential litigants interferes with the fulfillment of Article III functions and responsibilities of the court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984) ("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."). Furthermore, in forma pauperis status may be denied to indigent petitioners who seriously abuse the privilege. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989). If a court chooses to exercise this authority, it must be careful not to effectively deny access to the courts. See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc).

In deciding whether to consider this extreme measure, the court should consider the following factors: (1) the litigant's history of vexatious litigation; (2) whether the litigant has an objective good faith belief he will prevail; "(3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties." Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1099 (1987).

The district court issued a prefiling injunction against Briggs after conducting a hearing on the matter. The injunction allows Briggs to file six in forma pauperis complaints each year without prior judicial approval. To file more than six complaints per year, Briggs is required to seek leave of court. Additionally, the court prohibited Briggs from further access to photocopying in the clerk's office and prohibited him from paying future costs or filing fees by check. Finally, based on Briggs' history of "belligerent and disruptive behavior," the court granted Briggs access to the clerk's office only from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. each day.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the prefiling injunction.^*  See Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074. It properly considered the filing of thirty-eight in forma pauperis actions by Briggs in slightly more than a one-month period. All of the complaints were dismissed by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because they lack an arguable basis in law or fact. The district court reasonably concluded that Briggs' conduct reflects a pattern of vexatious litigation. It is also clear that the cases are placing an unnecessary burden on the courts. The complaints reveal a lack of good faith by Briggs in the filing of the claims. Finally, given Briggs' attempts to file additional complaints in spite of the temporary restraining order, and his abusive and disruptive behavior toward the clerk's office employees, it is unlikely that a less restrictive sanction would be adequate. Moreover, in light of the circumstances presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the other restrictions on Briggs' access to the court.

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Briggs' eighteen civil complaints and the imposition of the prefiling injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.