JEAN LOUVERTURE
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 engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking his judgments and sentences may be barred from future pro se filings to conserve judicial resources.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings in a particular case when the litigant engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filing…
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.”
Court's citation to Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), expressing the court's determination that further pro se filings would not be tolerated.
Jean Louverture, proceeding pro se, filed multiple abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking his judgments and sentences in Orang…
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
JEAN LOUVERTURE, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D20-2444 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 19, 2021 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Jean Louverture, Doral, pro se. No Appearance for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgments and sentences in Orange County Case Number 2010-CF-9460, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited
2 from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having failed to file a response showing cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Appellant is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, the Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the above 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.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED. LAMBERT, EDWARDS, and HARRIS, 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)