LENA MARIE LINDBERG
v.
BRUCE LEE ASSAM, ERIC THOMPSON, VINCENT ALBERT CITRO, EDWARD MELVIN FITZGERALD, OFFICER MODERSON, JINELLE GILETTE, GEORGE PENLEY, JEANNIE HOFFHINE AND DAVID BUTLER
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 may be prohibited from future pro se filings in the appellate court as a sanction for abuse of the judicial process.
[1] A court may dismiss an appeal and prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further pro se pleadings when the litigant's filings constitute an abuse of the judicial process…
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 sanction of prohibiting future pro se filings.
Lena Marie Lindberg filed an appeal in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The court issued an order directing her to show cause why the appeal should…
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
LENA MARIE LINDBERG,
Appellant, v. Case No. 5D21-2165
LT Case No. 05-2021-AP-022868
BRUCE LEE ASSAM, ERIC THOMPSON,
VINCENT ALBERT CITRO, EDWARD
MELVIN FITZGERALD, OFFICER
MODERSON, JINELLE GILETTE,
GEORGE PENLEY, JEANNIE
HOFFHINE AND DAVID BUTLER,
Appellees.
/
Opinion filed December 3, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Robert Segal, Judge.
Lena Marie Lindberg, Satellite Beach, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by her abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings in the above-styled case, this Court issued an Order directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed and why she should not be prohibited from future pro se filings in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the Response and finding it fails to show cause
2
why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that she is abusing the judicial process and sanctions should be imposed. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, the above-styled case is dismissed, and Appellant is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings. Any future filings from Appellant 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.
EDWARDS, HARRIS and SASSO, 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)