VICTOR HICKS
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 litigant who repeatedly abuses the judicial process through pro se filings may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in a case.
[1] A court may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings when the litigant has repeatedly abused the judicial process through frivolous or repetitive filings,…
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”
Citation to Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), expressing the court's determination that further pro se filings would not be tolerated.
Victor Hicks, proceeding pro se, filed repeated pleadings in a petition for writ of mandamus against the State of Florida. The court issued an order d…
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 Conservation Of Judicial Resources cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
VICTOR HICKS,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D20-2664
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 9, 2021
Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Paetra Terry Brownlee, Respondent Judge.
Victor Hicks, Orlando, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner 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 the 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. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning the present case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case. Any future filings regarding this 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, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough").
PETITIONER PROHIBITED.
COHEN, LAMBERT 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)