Defendant sought a "prosecution bond," pursuant to N.C.G.S. §1-109, against the allegations made by plaintiff, a pro se litigant. The Court held that it was required to consider "(1) the relative merits of the case; (2) whether the costs in the case will be substantial; (3) the evidence, if any, of the plaintiff’s inability to satisfy a judgment for costs; and (4) whether the plaintiff has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits."

The Court found there was no evidence to support the imposition of a prosecution bond, and denied the motion. On the last factor, the Court found that the plaintiff’s history of being a prolific pro se litigant was insufficent to require the imposition of a bond.

The Court also held that plaintiff’s pro se status would not excuse him from compliance with the rules of the Court.

Full Opinion