KEVIN O. TAYLOR
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 a judgment and sentence 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 a pattern of abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attack…
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 in support of the prohibition on further pro se filings.
Kevin O. Taylor filed multiple pro se petitions attacking his judgment and sentence in Seminole County Circuit Court Case Number 2015-CF-001788. The c…
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
KEVIN O. TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D21-2387
LT Case No. 2015-001788
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
Opinion filed December 10, 2021
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
Kevin O. Taylor, Orlando, 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 his judgment and sentence in Seminole County Circuit Court Case Number 2015-CF-001788, 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
2 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Seminole County Circuit Court Case Number 2015-CF-001788. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case 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. (2019); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
PETITIONER PROHIBITED FROM FURTHER PRO SE FILINGS.
EVANDER, WALLIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.