CEDRIC WARREN
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 may be barred from future pro se filings in a particular case to conserve judicial resources.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further petitions in a particular case when the litigant engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filing…
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 regarding the need to prevent continued abuse of the judicial process.
Cedric Warren, a pro se litigant, filed multiple abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking his judgment and sentence in a 2001 Vo…
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 CEDRIC WARREN, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 5D23-567 LT Case No. 2001-36396-CFAES STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 19, 2023 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Cedric Warren, Lake City, 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 Volusia County Circuit Court Case No. 2001-36396-CFAES, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he should not
2 be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having received no response, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.
Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, the Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the above 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. (2023); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED. EISNAUGLE, HARRIS and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)