BARKER
v.
STATE
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 Fifth District Court of Appeal prohibited a pro se litigant from making further filings in a specific case due to his repeated abuse of the legal process through meritless and frivolous submissions. The court found his filings to be an abuse of the judicial system, warranting the sanction to conserve judicial resources.
Yes, the appellant's repeated pro se filings constitute an abuse of the legal process, and he is therefore prohibited from filing any further pro se documents concerning the referenced case.
[1] A court may sanction a party for abusing the judicial process and burdening judicial resources through a persistent history of filing frivolous, meritless, or otherwise i…
[2] A court may order its clerk to reject future pro se filings related to specific circuit court cases from a party who has abused the judicial process, unless those 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“Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated meritless, frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2009-CF-10484, this Court issued an order on December 26, 2018, directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings.”
Establishes the basis for the court's order to show cause and the nature of the appellant's actions.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Joseph Barker, filed numerous pro se appeals attacking his judgment and sentence. The court previously issued an order directing him to…
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 Independent Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
JOSEPH BARKER, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-1710 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 8, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Kevin B. Weiss, Judge.
Joseph Barker, Crawfordville, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated meritless,
frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Orange County Circuit
Court Case Number 2009-CF-10484, this Court issued an order on December 26, 2018,
directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered
Appellant’s response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings regarding the above referenced case.
Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is hereby prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case.
The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See
Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”).
Should Appellant ignore the above imposed sanction and requirement that further pleadings be signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, this Court will direct the Clerk to provide a certified copy of this opinion and any subsequent, related opinions to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary action against Appellant.
See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA
2005).
BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)