JEFFREY JEROME WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an order striking Jeffrey Jerome Walker's motion for reimbursement of filing fees and referring him for disciplinary action under section 944.279. Walker, an inmate who had been subject to a 1997 sanction order requiring prepayment of all filing fees, repeatedly violated the order by filing approximately 30 pro se pleadings, including 19 appeals or petitions in this court, and the court imposed additional sanctions for his abuse of process.
The court affirmed the circuit court's order striking Walker's motion and its referral for disciplinary action, finding that Walker's continued practice of filing pro se pleadings in violation of the sanction order constituted frivolous abuse of the judicial process. The court sua sponte imposed additional sanctions by directing the clerk to forward a copy of the opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
[1] A court may sanction a litigant who abuses the judicial process by repeatedly filing frivolous or meritless requests for relief.
[2] A court may impose restrictions on a pro se litigant's future filings when the litigant has a history of abusing the judicial process with frivolous or meritless requests…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is well-settled that courts have the inherent authority and duty to limit abuses of judicial process by pro se litigants.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle authorizing courts to sanction abusive pro se litigants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 1997, the circuit court entered an order prohibiting Walker from filing documents without prepaying fees and directing the clerk to reject …
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 Sanctions For Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Jeffrey Jerome Walker, challenges an order striking his motion for reimbursement of filing fees and referring Appellant for disciplinary action under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2009). We affirm, and sua sponte impose additional sanctions for Appellant’s repeated abuse of process.
On October 16, 1997, the circuit court entered an order prohibiting Appellant from filing documents on his own behalf without prepaying any fee, and directing the clerk of court to reject any document filed by Appellant not accompanied with a filing fee or signed by a member of the Florida Bar.
Since the sanction order was entered, Appellant has filed no fewer than 30 pleadings, including approximately 19 appeals or petitions in this court. The current appeal before this court stemmed from a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pro se in 2004. The circuit court dismissed the petition because it did not meet the requirements for habeas relief and Appellant was not represented by counsel. Appellant appealed the dismissal, and a lien was placed on Appellant’s prisoner trust account for the full amount of court costs and fees because he was unable to prepay the costs. The lien was ratified by separate order. This court affirmed the dismissal per curiam.
Appellant then moved to recall the order imposing the lien, and moved for reimbursement of $77.77 that was withdrawn from his trust account to satisfy a portion of the lien. The circuit court struck Appellant’s motion and referred him to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action for failing to comply with the 1997 sanctions order.
“It is well-settled that courts have the inherent authority and duty to limit abuses of judicial process by pro se litigants.” Golden v. Buss, 60 So.3d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 790 So.2d 398, 400 (Fla.2001) (noting the supreme court has inherent power to regulate and sanction a disruptive litigant); McCutcheon v. State, 44 So.3d 156, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concluding appellant’s appeals were frivolous, malicious, and not filed in good faith; forwarding opinion to the DOC for consideration of disciplinary procedures).
Appellant’s disregard for the judicial process is well documented. We find that Appellant’s continued practice of filing pro se pleadings in violation of the circuit court’s sanction order to be frivolous. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to forward a copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Jones, 229 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ly retain jurisdiction to pursue any additional sanctions against him pursuant to rule 9.410, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Steele v. State, 998 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2008); Walker v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 70 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Brown v. Jones, 221 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…retained jurisdiction to pursue any additional sanctions against him pursuant to rule 9.410, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Steele v. State, 998 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2008); Walker v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 70 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Upon this Court’s order to show causé why additional sanctions should not be imposed, Mr. Brown responded that his civil litigation and appeals should not be considered together with his criminal appeals and postconviction fil…
-
Marts v. Presnell, 134 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…Procedure 9.410, refer Marts to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures. “It is well-settled that courts have the inherent authority and duty to limit abuses of judicial process by pro se litigants.” Walker v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 70 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Golden v. Buss, 60 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)); see also Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla.2001) (noting the supreme court has inherent power to regulate and sanction a disruptive litigant); Mc…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Golden v. Buss, 60 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)