PETER ALLEN ANDERSON
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.
Florida appellate court barred pro se appellant from filing further pleadings in his criminal case due to abuse of process through repetitive, frivolous filings.
A pro se litigant who abuses the judicial process through repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in a particular case.
[1] A pro se litigant engaged in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking a judgment may be barred from further pro se filings in that case to conserve…
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 intelligenceAppellant Anderson filed abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in a Seminole County criminal…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment(s) and sentence(s) in Seminole County Circuit Court Case Number 14-CF-0877-A, this Court issued an order directing Appellant 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 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, Appellant 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.”). 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. (2018); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). FURTHER PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
COHEN, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, 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)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Layne Atl. Co. & Wausau Ins. Cos. v. Scott, 415 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Sears Commercial Sales & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Retha Davis, 559 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)