ANTHONY R. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSWITHA HELGA STEWART, APPELLEE
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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal barred pro se litigant Anthony Martin and his mother from filing further unrepresented pleadings due to abuse of the appellate process, requiring all future filings to be certified by Florida Bar counsel. The court issued this extreme sanction after Martin filed at least fifteen separate proceedings since 1990, creating an unsustainable burden on the court's operations.
The court barred the appellant and his mother from filing any further pro se proceedings, pleadings, briefs, or other papers in the court. All future filings must be certified by a Florida Bar member acting as the appellant's attorney of record. Any pro se appeals or petitions currently pending will be dismissed 30 days after the opinion's issuance unless counsel files a notice of appearance, and any further pro se petitions or appeals will be dismissed without further notice.
[1] A court may bar a pro se litigant and their non-attorney representative from filing further proceedings when the litigant has engaged in a pattern of excessive and frivol…
[2] Future pro se filings by a litigant previously barred from such may be dismissed without further notice if they are not certified by a member of the bar as the attorney o…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This court has been inundated with appeals and petitions from this allegedly aggrieved pro se litigant. Since 1990, at least fifteen separate proceedings have been filed, not to mention requests for rehearings, emergency supplements and the like.”
Establishes the pattern of abuse and frequency of filings that motivated the sanction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSince 1990, Anthony Martin, a pro se litigant, filed at least fifteen separate appeals and petitions in this court, along with requests for rehearings…
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court has been inundated with appeals and petitions from this allegedly aggrieved pro se litigant. Since 1990, at least fifteen separate proceedings have been filed, not to mention requests for rehearings, emergency supplements and the like. Indeed of late, we have been unable to get our rulings published in time to forestall an almost daily influx of new pleadings filed, not by the appellant, but, on his behalf, by his non-attorney mother. The appellant’s latest entreaty centers around an order of contempt, entered by the trial court. However, he has filed in this same cause an emergency petition for rehearing and disclosure, a supplement thereto, and a renewed motion/demand for release and supplement to petition for rehearing. Enough is enough.
We note “en passant” that the appellant has also filed suit against all the sitting members of the Florida Supreme Court.
We deny all current and pending motions and petitions, and further invoke the extreme remedy of barring the appellant and his mother from filing, or causing to be filed, any further pro se proceedings, pleadings, briefs or other papers in this court. All future filings must be certified to by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing who must also certify that he or she is the appellant’s attorney of record. Furthermore, this appeal and others now pending before this court where appellant appears . pro se as a petitioner or appellant will be dismissed 30 days after the issuance of this opinion unless appellant has filed on his behalf a notice of appearance by Florida counsel.
Our decision is not without precedent and we specifically rely on, endorse and approve of, the reasoning in Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988); Kreager v. Glickman, 519 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1988); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1983); N K Fields v. State, 420 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA), appeal dismissed, 422 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1982).
FURTHERMORE, THE INSTITUTION OF ANY FURTHER PRO SE PETITIONS OR APPEALS WILL RESULT IN THEIR DISMISSAL WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. A PETITION OR MOTION FOR REHEARING OF THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur. ON MODIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
The opinion filed on April 26, 1991 is hereby sua sponte modified to add the following citations: United States v. Martin-Trigona, 767 F. 2d 35 (2d Cir.1985); Martin-Trigona v. Underwood, 529 F. 2d 33 (7th Cir.1975); In re Martin-Trigona v. Lavien, 573 F.Supp. 1245 (D.Conn.1983), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061, 106 S.Ct. 807, 88 L.Ed.2d 782 (1986); In re Martin-Trigona v. Lavien, 573 F.Supp. 1237 (D.Conn. 1983), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 1285, 89 L.Ed.2d 592 (1986); In re Martin-Trigona, 55 Ill.2d 301, 302 N.E. 2d 68 (1973).
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Attwood v. Eighth Cir. Court, 667 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…of service. We find that Mr. Attwood’s pro se activities before this court have substantially interfered with the orderly process of judicial administration in this court. E.g., Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin v. Stewart, 588 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, in the exercise of our inherent power to prevent abuse of court procedure, it is ordered that Robert Attwood is henceforth…
-
Wm. Samuel McALILEY II v. Helena H. McALILEY, 704 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…theless, I think the judge has been too timid with this obvious misuse of the system by a lawyer for his own ends. If I had been in the trial judge’s shoes, I think I would have granted the relief requested by the former wife. See Martin v. Stewart, 588 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), mandamus granted, 591 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1991); and Attwood v. Eighth Circuit Court, Union County, 667 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). A trial judge could properly require that any future filings by the former husband in his own be…
-
Martin v. Honorable Paul Marko, 651 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…owing order: Ordered, sua sponte, that this court takes judicial notice of its records. Specifically, the court takes notice of the cases filed by petitioner in a three-year period since this court issued sanctions against him in Martin v. Stewart, 588 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA), mandamus granted sub nom. Martin v. District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 591 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1991). During this three-year period, petitioner has filed seventeen appeals (both final and non-final) and fifteen original proceedi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Kreager v. Glickman, 519 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- In re Martin-Trigona, 475 U.S. 1058 (U.S. 1986)
- Craft v. Metromedia, Inc., 475 U.S. 1058 (U.S. 1986)
- McLain v. Walker, 474 U.S. 1061 (U.S. 1986)
- Marin v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 474 U.S. 1061 (U.S. 1986)
- Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Martin-Trigona v. Underwood, 529 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1975)
- Fields v. State of Fla. & Fifteenth Cir. Court of Fla., 420 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- United States v. Martin-Trigona, 767 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1985)