the restrictions imposed by the pre-filing injunction. In the future, Baum may file a Rule 60(b)(5) motion to modify or dissolve the pre-filing injunction if changed factual circumstances warrant that action, and the district court’s ruling on that motion will be appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). This pre-filing injunction is not a punishment; it is merely a tool to ensure that Baum does not continue to engage in abusive litigation practices. If Baum violates the pre-filing injunction, as modified by this opinion, then he would be subject to a criminal contempt prosecution. In this case, the Order to Show Cause gave notice (1) that Douglas Baum might be held in criminal contempt and (2) that the district court might impose a broad pre-filing injunction. See Cromer, 390 F.3d at 819-20 (<HOLDING>). Baum was given notice and an opportunity to
holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that notice of a possible finding of contempt rarely provides adequate notice of a prefiling injunction holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that actual notice by mail in conjunction with published notice was best possible notice satisfying rule 23c