YURI BERY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JULIANA BERY, PETITIONER,

v.

GHASSAN FAHEL, D.O., RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Montesinos v. State, 143 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
  …not been shown. “[Ijncarcerated persons should and do have a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations.” Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Prisoners [*1057] do not, however, enjoy a constitutional right to file frivolous lawsuits. Williams, 121 So. 3d at 1115; Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515, 517-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Montesinos has reached the point where “…
• Keithan Darnell Battie v. State, 117 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
  …been found to be meritorious. FRIVOLOUS APPEALS BY PRISONERS “We recognize that incarcerated persons should and do have a full panoply [*73] of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations.” Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). There is, however, no constitutional right to file a frivolous lawsuit. See Hepburn, 934 So. 2d at 517-18; see also Villalobos v. State, 96 So. 3d 970, 971…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Katracy Dawson v. State, 121 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
  …current petition is wholly frivolous. II. Frivolous Appeals by Prisoners As we have stated before, “incarcerated persons have a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations.” Edwards v. State, 96 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). Because there is “no constitutional right to file a frivolous lawsuit,” frivolous post conviction motions and petitions are not among an incarcerated person…