in vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Questions of subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo on appeal. Bissonnet Invs. L.L.C. v. Quinlan (In re Bissonnet Invs. L.L.C.), 320 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir.2003). Douglas Baum argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sua sponte modify the pre-filing injunction. We disagree. A district court has jurisdiction to impose a pre-filing injunction to deter vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation. Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir.1986) (recognizing the district court’s inherent power to protect its jurisdiction and judgments and to control its own dockets); Day v. Allstate Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 1110, 1115 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>) (citing Martin-Trigona v. Lavien (In re
holding that an appeal point was forfeited because the litigant failed to make the same argument when appealing from the bankruptcy court to the district court holding that a district court may impose a prefiling injunction which would bar a litigant from filing any additional actions without first obtaining leave from the district court to deter vexatious filings holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding that retransfer to district court would be futile where district court determined it was without jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claim holding that plaintiff brought its claim to district court for a vexatious purpose when the claim was a mirror image of the state court action