JONATHAN LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
An inmate appealed orders dismissing his negligence actions because he failed to pay filing fees after being directed to comply with an unconstitutional statutory requirement. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court improperly required the inmate to submit copies of prior litigation documents in violation of prior Florida Supreme Court precedent declaring that requirement unconstitutional.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by requiring Lewis to comply with the unconstitutional copying requirement in section 57.085(7). Lewis must be given the opportunity to submit only a list of his prior actions without the unconstitutionally mandated copies, and any determination regarding vexatious litigant status must comply with section 68.093.
[1] A court order directing a litigant to submit copies of all prior lawsuits and their dispositions, pursuant to a statute requiring such copies, is unconstitutional if that…
[2] A litigant who challenges an unconstitutional statutory requirement imposed by a court order must be given an opportunity to comply with the constitutional portions of th…
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“The Florida Supreme Court had held the copying requirement in section 57.085(7) to be unconstitutional. Jackson v. Department of Corrections, 790 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla.2000); Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla.2001). We cannot determine based upon the record that appellant would have declined to comply had the court only directed him to file a listing of prior actions, which would have warranted denial of appellant's motion for waiver, and thus we cannot affirm on that basis.”
Establishes that the trial court imposed an unconstitutional requirement and that the appellate court cannot affirm dismissal based on non-compliance with that requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJonathan Lewis, an inmate, sought indigency status and a waiver of court costs for two negligence actions. The trial court found him indigent under pr…
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.
Jonathan Lewis, an inmate, appeals orders dismissing two negligence actions because he did not pay the filing fees. We reverse and remand, because the trial court directed appellant to comply with a portion of section 57.085(7), Florida Statutes (2012), that has been declared unconstitutional.
After appellant asked the lower court to find that he was indigent and to waive court costs,1 the court determined that appellant had been adjudicated indigent under section 57.081, Florida Statutes (2012), twice in the preceding three years, and thus directed him pursuant to section 57.085(7) to submit a listing of each suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal that he had brought in the preceding five years, and to attach a copy of each of these documents and a record of the disposition of each.
Appellant did not comply with the lower court’s order, and instead filed various motions asking the lower court to dispense with these requirements because of the large amount of paperwork involved and the cost, and because the clerk of the court could print out such information from a website. The lower court denied appellant’s motions to be declared indigent and, directed him to pay the filing fees within thirty days. When Appellant did not pay the filing fees, the court dismissed his lawsuits. This was error.
*1114The Florida Supreme Court had held the copying requirement in section 57.085(7) to be unconstitutional. Jackson v. Department of Corrections, 790 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla.2000); Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521 (Fla.2001). We cannot determine based upon the record that appellant would have declined to comply had the court only directed him to file a listing of prior actions, which would have warranted denial of appellant’s motion for waiver, and thus we cannot affirm on that basis. See, e.g., Johnson v. Burns, 804 So.2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Applying the rule of lenity to this pro se litigant, see Esquivel v. McDonough, 946 So.2d 104, 105 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), appellant sufficiently challenged the copy requirement below and on appeal. Because this requirement was unconstitutionally imposed contrary to Jackson and Mitchell, appellant must be given the opportunity to submit a list of his prior actions required by section 57.085(7), minus the copies.
Contrary to the arguments of the parties, the trial court did not definitively determine that appellant is a vexatious litigant, and any such determination must be reached in compliance with section 68.093, Florida Statutes (2012).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001)
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2001)
- Vale v. State, 946 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Garrick John v. Dep't OF Corr., 124 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Johnson v. Burns, 804 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)