JOSEPH BARKER
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.
A pro se litigant who repeatedly files meritless and frivolous pleadings attacking his judgment and sentence may be prohibited from further pro se filings in the appellate court.
[1] A pro se litigant may be prohibited from filing further pleadings in an appellate court when the litigant has engaged in repeated meritless and frivolous filings that con…
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 intelligence“Enough is enough.”
The court cited this phrase from Isley v. State when imposing the pro se filing prohibition.
Joseph Barker, proceeding pro se, filed repeated meritless and frivolous pleadings attacking his judgment and sentence in Orange County Circuit Court …
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 Abuse Of Legal Process 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
2
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)