In The Matter of James B. Jordan, 2:23-mc-00154

From April–November 2023, James B. Jordan engaged in repeated disruptive, abusive, and threatening conduct at the Roybal and First Street U.S. Courthouses (FSCH) in the Central District of California, including profanity, racial slurs, threats of physical violence, and blocking entrances.
Incidents triggered multiple duress alarms, required CSO/FPS intervention, and on at least one occasion (July 14, 2023) led to arrest and citation for violating courthouse regulations.
Jordan photographed staff in violation of posted rules, lunged a sign toward a CSO, and on several occasions refused to leave when asked, impeding Clerk’s Office operations and screening procedures.
The Clerk’s Office and security personnel repeatedly attempted nonpunitive measures (reasoning, escorts), which the court found were ineffective or counterproductive.
Jordan also filed numerous civil suits in the district since March 31, 2023; most were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim.
The Chief Judge concluded that the cumulative conduct threatened safety, disrupted court operations, and impaired courtroom/courthouse decorum, and therefore issued an order restricting Jordan’s in-person courthouse access while preserving alternate filing and limited-entry procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may restrict an individual’s in-person access to courthouses due to disruptive conduct	Jordan would assert a right to access courthouses and to attend proceedings	Court must protect safety, operations, and decorum given repeated threats and disruptions	Court upheld authority to restrict in-person access and prohibited Jordan from entering courthouses without prior permission
Whether the restrictions violate constitutional rights (access/First Amendment)	Jordan likely argues infringement on access and expression	Restrictions narrowly tailored to safety and operational needs; alternatives provided for filing and attendance requests	Court found restriction necessary and the least restrictive means under circumstances
Whether less restrictive alternatives exist (escorts, on-site accommodations)	Jordan would argue escorts or limited measures suffice	Court found escorts often escalated incidents and other measures failed	Court concluded no less restrictive, effective alternatives and allowed remote filing and designated entry procedures
Procedural safeguards for future access	Jordan would seek ability to enter freely or simple advance notice	Court imposed procedural requirements for entry requests and periodic review	Court required one-week advance filing in miscellaneous case number; Chief Judge to review every 90 days

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts possess inherent power to preserve decorum and enforce orders)
Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821) (courts empowered to impose silence, respect, and submission to lawful mandates)
In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984) (federal courts have inherent power to protect jurisdiction from impairing conduct)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (court control extends to courtroom and courthouse premises to prevent carnival atmosphere)
Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005) (court officials may close courtroom or restrict access for those reasonably thought to pose threats)
Mead v. Gordon, 583 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Or. 2008) (upholding courthouse access restriction for disruptive behavior as not violative of First Amendment)