DOUGLAS M. JACKSON AND RONTARIAN WRIGHT, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Two inmates petitioned for habeas corpus relief arguing they were not subject to state court jurisdiction and that their confinement constituted unconstitutional kidnapping. The court denied the petition on the merits and imposed sanctions on the lead petitioner for abusing the appellate process through excessive frivolous filings.
The court denied the habeas corpus petition on the merits, rejecting the arguments that the inmates lacked state court jurisdiction or that their confinement was unconstitutional kidnapping. The court imposed sanctions on Jackson prohibiting him from appearing as a litigant in the court unless represented by counsel, requiring him to retain bar-certified counsel within 10 days, and blocking further self-filed submissions.
[1] A court may impose sanctions on a litigant whose repeated filings have substantially interfered with the administration of justice.
[2] Sanctions may include requiring a pro se litigant to secure representation by counsel in all active cases before the court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Douglas M. Jackson, Sr., has appeared as appellant or petitioner in this forum 166 times since 1987 and this litigation has substantially interfered with the administration of justice.”
Establishes the basis for imposing sanctions—Jackson's pattern of excessive filings constituting an abuse of the appellate process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDouglas M. Jackson, Sr., and another inmate filed a habeas corpus petition challenging their confinement by the Florida Department of Corrections. Jac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Douglas M. Jackson, Sr., and another inmate petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state and that their confinement by the Department of Corrections after sentences were imposed amounted to unconstitutional kidnapping. The habeas corpus petition was denied on the merits. Jackson v. State, 1 So.3d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
This court also issued the following order on January 13, 2009:
The records of this court reflect that Douglas M. Jackson, Sr., has appeared as appellant or petitioner in this forum 166 times since 1987 and this litigation has substantially interfered with the administration of justice. Mr. Jackson shall therefore show cause within 15 days of date of this order why sanctions, possibly including a prohibition against appearing as a litigant in this court unless represented by counsel, should not be imposed against him.
Jackson has not filed a response to this order within the time permitted. We therefore impose the sanction described in the above-referenced order. It is hereby ordered that Douglas M. Jackson, Sr., shall secure the filing of a notice of appearance by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar in all active cases now pending before this court in which he appears as appellant or petitioner within 10 days of the date of this order, failing which such cases shall be subject to dismissal. Further, the clerk of this court is directed to accept no further filings from Jackson; if received they shall be returned to him without filing and with a reference to this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAWKES C.J., BROWNING and THOMAS, JJ., concur.