DERRICK EMILE LEWIS
v.
RICKY D. DIXON, ETC., ET AL.
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.
The Third District Court of Appeal enforced a show cause order against Derrick Emile Lewis, an incarcerated pro se litigant who has filed numerous meritless post-conviction motions and habeas petitions over three decades. The court prohibited Lewis from filing further self-represented pleadings related to his criminal case without attorney review and signature, balancing his constitutional right to court access against the court's need to prevent abuse of its process.
The court held that Lewis has forfeited his right to file further self-represented pleadings related to his case and must obtain attorney review and signature for any future filings. The court concluded that Lewis failed to demonstrate good cause and that restricting his access does not violate the Florida Constitution's access to courts provision when the litigant has abused the judicial process.
[1] A court may prohibit a party from submitting further pro se filings if the party has abused the judicial process.
[2] The right to access the courts may be forfeited by a party who abuses the judicial process.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution – Article I, Section 21 – provides an avenue for an incarcerated person in Florida to challenge the legal basis for his or her incarceration; however, this constitutional right may be forfeited if that person abuses the judicial process.”
Establishes the foundational principle that the right to court access is not absolute and may be lost through abuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis pleaded guilty in 1993 to second-degree murder, burglary with assault, and arson, receiving consecutive sentences totaling 80 years. Since 1994,…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
On Order to Show Cause
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Emile Lewis (“Petitioner”), representing himself, petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. On February 16, 2024, we denied his petition and issued an order to show cause why Petitioner should not be prohibited from submitting any further self-represented filings with this Court related to lower tribunal case number F91-19322.1
Although our order to show cause gave Petitioner forty-five days to respond, Petitioner did not file a response. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown good cause.
The access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution – Article I, Section 21 – provides an avenue for an incarcerated person in Florida to challenge the legal basis for his or her incarceration; however, this constitutional right may be forfeited if that person abuses the judicial process. Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Our responsibility
is to balance the incarcerated person’s right to access to courts with the need of this Court to devote its finite resources to legitimate appeals and petitions. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Accordingly, after notice in the form of an order to show cause and an opportunity for the incarcerated person to respond, a court may prevent further filings. Id.; see Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540, 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause to justify further self-represented filings of appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings with this Court related to lower tribunal case number F91-19322. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal not to accept any further filings from Petitioner related to this circuit court case number, unless such a filing has been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
Any such further and unauthorized self-represented filings by Petitioner will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration of disciplinary action, including forefeiture of gain time. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2023).
Order issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Lewis v. State, 298 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)