VINODH M. RAGHUBIR, PETITIONER(S)
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT(S)
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 Supreme Court dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus filed by pro se petitioner Raghubir because it raised issues identical to a previously filed petition that had been transferred to the district court. The Court also initiated sanctions proceedings against Raghubir for abusing judicial process through repeated frivolous filings.
The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as duplicative of previously filed case SC18-714. The Court directs petitioner to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pleadings in this Court related to specified case numbers unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
[1] A court may order the clerk to reject future pro se filings related to specific case numbers unless signed by a licensed attorney when a litigant has a history of numerou…
[2] A litigant's response to an order to show cause must be responsive to the court's inquiry regarding potential restrictions on future filings.
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“The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed because petitioner raises the same issues as in Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-714, 2018 WL 2230720 (Fla. May 16, 2018), in which the petition was transferred to the district court.”
States the primary basis for dismissal of the current petition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSince 2017, petitioner Vinodh M. Raghubir has filed twenty-one petitions or notices with the Florida Supreme Court. The Court has transferred, dismiss…
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 Pro Se Litigant Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vinodh M. Raghubir v. State, 271 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2018)…ir to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se requests for relief in this Court related to circuit and district court case numbers 482016CF001833000AOX, 482016CF005231000AOX, 5D17-3644, and 5D17-912. See Raghubir v. State , 252 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2018). We now find that Raghubir has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and we sanction him as set forth below. In Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (Orange County) case number 16-CF-001833, Raghubir was convicted of one count of fr…
Authorities Cited
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Desue v. Jones, 213 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2017)