In Armstrong v. Koury Corp., 16 F. Supp. 2d 616, 620 (M.D.N.C.1998), aff'd, 168 F.3d 481 (4th Cir. 1999), the court was faced with a pro se litigant who filed six repetitive and frivolous complaints against the same defendant regarding the same transaction. When financial penalties had no effect on the plaintiff, an injunction was issued "enjoining Plaintiff from access to the federal court system without prior leave of court." Id. at 621. The injunction was drafted to include all actions in state or federal court. Ibid. The District Judge held that: The court is given substantial discretion to craft appropriate sanctions, and an injunction from filing any further actions is an appropriate sanction to curb groundless, repetitive, and frivolous suits: "A court faced with a litigant engaged in a pattern of frivolous litigation has the authority to implement a remedy that may include restrictions on that litigant's access to the court." Lysiak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 816 F.2d 311, 313 (7th Cir.1987); see also Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir.) (injunction pertaining to all pleadings and future lawsuits), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 829, 101 S. Ct. 96, 66 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1980); Gordon v. United States Dep't of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir.1977) (enjoining continuing, instituting, or prosecuting, without prior leave of court, any legal proceeding in any court); Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 230 (N.D.Ind.1986) (enjoining any filings or proceedings in any federal court). Id. at 620. The court noted that it not only has the power "to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions," but also bears the constitutional obligation to do so. Ibid.