and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.” Sieverding, 469 F.3d at 1343 (citing Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir.1989)). Second, we have been unable to locate any authority, and Baum has cited to none, holding that a pre-filing injunction constitutes criminal contempt. On the contrary, Martin-Trigona held that a pre-filing injunction does not constitute criminal contempt. 737 F.2d at 1260. Third, a pre-filing injunction is not a recognized penalty for criminal contempt. See 18 U.S.C. § 401 (“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority .... ”); see United States v. Ortlieb, 274 F.3d 871, 879 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, unless Congress has expressly
holding that 25 surcharge added to fees that otherwise would be compensatory was a criminal contempt sanction even though it was payable to the adverse party and not to the court reversing order for sanctions because court did not follow procedural requirements for criminal contempt holding corporation and its president in criminal contempt because previous order of civil contempt had not been purged holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that suspension from the practice of law was not a recognized penalty for criminal contempt under  401 holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction