STEVEN T. HUMPHREY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Steven Humphrey appealed the court's June 26, 2018 dismissal order, which was entered due to his failure to comply with court orders. Since 2011, Humphrey filed over thirty proceedings in the appellate court regarding three related criminal cases, most of which were meritless, non-compliant with court directives, and burdensome to judicial resources. The court imposed a bar on future pro se filings in these cases.
The court directed the clerk to place in an inactive file any notices of appeal related to the three specified criminal cases unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Humphrey failed to show cause why such a prohibition should not be imposed, given his pattern of frivolous filings and repeated non-compliance with court orders.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant's right to file future appeals in cases involving specified docket numbers when the litigant demonstrates a pattern of initiating n…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrom 2011 to the present, Humphrey initiated over thirty proceedings in the appellate court related to three Hillsborough County criminal cases. He fi…
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
PER CURIAM.
By order of June 26, 2018, we dismissed Steven Humphrey's appeal for failure to comply with an order of this court. Our order detailed Humphrey's initiation of over thirty proceedings in this court related to his criminal charges in Hillsborough County circuit court case numbers 07-CF-18225, 09-CF-4658, and 09-CF-6161. We noted that his frequent and meritless filings and repeated failure to adhere to our orders burdened the limited resources of this court and interfered with the resolution of genuine disputes.
From 2011 to present, Humphrey has initiated over thirty proceedings in this court regarding his criminal charges in the aforementioned criminal case numbers.1 Humphrey filed nine appeals from the denials of motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which were either affirmed or dismissed, and Humphrey filed three petitions for writ of mandamus that were denied.
Aside from those cases, Humphrey has frequently failed to comply with multiple orders from this court, resulting in the dismissal of over twenty other proceedings. In these cases, this court was unable to determine its jurisdiction based on Humphrey's notices of appeal or petitions. Frequently, Humphrey's notices and petitions were riddled with extraneous information, including multiple case numbers and dates which compounded the difficulty of interpreting his filings. This court issued orders directing Humphrey to clarify which trial court orders he sought review of in each proceeding and often directed him to include only the pertinent case numbers in his response. However, Humphrey either failed to respond or his responses failed to comply with our orders, resulting in the dismissal of those proceedings.
Accordingly, we directed Humphrey to show cause why this court should not direct the clerk to reject pleadings in this court related to his three circuit court case numbers unless the filing is related to a pending appeal or submitted by a licensed Florida attorney. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla. 1999).
Humphrey filed a response that is similar to his other filings. It has multiple case numbers written in the margins and includes extraneous information and attachments. We have reviewed Humphrey's response and are unable to discern any 1This court affirmed the appeal of his judgment and sentence without prejudice to file a motion for postconviction relief. See Humphrey v. State, 98 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).. 1 argument that is responsive to our order to show cause. As such, we find that Humphrey has failed to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing future pro se appeals related to his criminal charges stemming from the aforementioned Hillsborough County cases.
Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to place in an inactive file any notices of appeal related to circuit court case numbers 07-CF-18225, 09-CF-4658, and 09-CF-6161, unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Spencer, 751 So. 2d at 48-49; McKenna v. State, 161 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- McKENNA v. State, 161 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- State v. Mann, 98 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Humphrey v. State, 98 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)