DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS
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 engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking various orders may be prohibited from future pro se filings to conserve judicial resources.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further petitions when the litigant engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings that constitute an…
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, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), expressing the court's determination that further pro se filings would not be tolerated.
Donald Otis Williams filed multiple abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking various orders in Lake 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
DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 5D21-1314
LT Case No. 2000-CF-2130
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________/
Opinion filed October 1, 2021
Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Heidi Davis, Respondent Judge.
Donald Otis Williams, Raiford, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking various orders in Lake County Circuit Court Case Number 2000-CF-2130, 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
2
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. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is 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.”).
FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
COHEN, TRAVER and WOZNIAK, 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)