KRISTEN COX
v.
A NEW HOPE PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, LLC AND MATTHEW MURPHY AND JESSICA MURPHY
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 contempt order for violating a pro se filing restriction is not subject to certiorari review when the error, if any, is correctable on post-judgment appeal.
[1] A contempt order for violation of a pro se filing restriction is not subject to certiorari review when any error in the order is correctable on post-judgment appeal.
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“cannot base contempt upon noncompliance with something an order does not say”
The court explained that contempt cannot be imposed for violating language an order does not contain, citing Prieto v. Rossi.
Petitioner was subject to a trial court order prohibiting pro se filings of 'further pleadings and motions.' She was held in contempt for filings that…
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 Inherent Authority Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2026-2469 Lower Tribunal No. 2025-CA-007174-O
KRISTEN COX, Petitioner,
V.
A NEW HOPE PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, LLC, MATTHEW MURPHY, and JESSICA MURPHY, Respondents.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Orange County. Kevin B. Weiss, Judge.
October 30, 2026
GANNAM, J.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a contempt order imposing monetary and other sanctions for violation of an order prohibiting pro se filings. To be sure, the trial court had both authority and good reason to bar pro se filings by Petitioner. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). The court's Spencer order, however, only prohibits Petitioner's pro se filing of "further pleadings and motions," and "pleadings and motions" have precise meanings under the so-named Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.100. The filings for which Petitioner was held in contempt of the Spencer order did not include any complaint, petition, answer, or reply, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(a) ("No other pleadings will be allowed."), or any "application to the court for an order [which] must be by motion,” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(b).¹ While the trial court may have intended its Spencer order to bar all pro se filings, the court "cannot base contempt upon noncompliance with something an order does not say." Prieto v. Rossi, 385 So. 3d 144, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (quoting Kovic v. Kovic, 336 So. 3d 22, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)). Nevertheless, even if we were to conclude that the contempt order departed from the essential requirements of the law, we do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review it because any such error is correctable on post-judgment appeal. See State v. Lobato, 394 So. 3d 1219, 1221–22 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). But the trial court "retains inherent authority to reconsider and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or order terminating an action.” Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998).
PETITION DISMISSED.
STARGEL and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.
Kristen Cox, Lakeland, pro se.
1 Petitioner did file a copy of a discovery motion of Respondents in which they applied for an order from the trial court, but she filed no motion of her own.
No Appearance for Respondents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Art Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1998)
- Kovic v. Kovic, 336 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- State v. Lobato, 394 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)