NEIL G. PAULSON, SR., PETITIONER,
v.
HON. KERRY I. EVANDER, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
Paulson, a lawyer acting as a pro se litigant in a custody dispute, petitioned for a writ of prohibition against Judge Evander, alleging the judge improperly amended and redrafted pleadings for Paulson's pro se former wife to help her motion withstand a motion to dismiss. The court granted the writ, holding that judicial amendment of pleadings to salvage a party's cause of action constitutes grounds for disqualification.
The court held that judicial amendment of pleadings to state a cause of action is sufficient to warrant disqualification. The judge's alteration of pleadings to help a party overcome a motion to dismiss violates the independence and impartiality required by judicial ethics and justifies prohibition from further participation in the case.
[1] A judge's amendment and redrafting of a pro se litigant's pleadings on the court's own motion to withstand an opponent's motion to dismiss is sufficient grounds for disqu…
[2] A court's obligation to uphold the independence and impartiality of the judiciary precludes participation in the redrafting of pleadings to state a cause of action.
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“A court can be tempted to make suggestions to pro se litigants in order to move cases along in compliance with the time standards imposed upon them by the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. However, our system of justice precludes participation by the court and imposes upon it the duty of ruling on those matters brought before it without participating in the redrafting of pleadings to state a cause of action.”
Establishes that despite administrative pressures, courts cannot participate in redrafting pleadings for pro se litigants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaulson and his former wife were both proceeding pro se in a custody matter. During a hearing on Paulson's motion to dismiss his ex-wife's counter-pet…
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 Judicial Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Neil G. Paulson, Sr., petitions for a writ of prohibition precluding exercise of jurisdiction by the Honorable Kerry Evander, Circuit Judge of the 18th Judicial Circuit, over proceedings to change the custody of a minor child. Paulson requested that Judge Evan-der disqualify himself and alleged that the judge had provided legal counsel and advice to Paulson’s pro se former wife. Specifically, Paulson alleged that during a hearing on Paulson’s motion to dismiss his former wife’s counter-petition, the judge on his own amended and redrafted pleadings for the former wife. The order entered on the motion to dismiss supports Paulson’s allegations.
It should be noted at the outset that both of the parties are acting pro se, but that the former husband has an advantage in that he is a lawyer while the former wife is not. Still, a court must maintain its obligation to uphold the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Fla.Code Jud.Conduct, Canon 1 and 2 A. A court can be tempted to make suggestions to pro se litigants in order to move cases along in compliance with the time standards imposed upon them by the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. However, our system of justice precludes participation by the court and imposes upon it the duty of ruling on those matters brought before it without participating in the redrafting of pleadings to state a cause of action. We reject, however, any attempt by Paulson to suggest that a court cannot explain the basis for a ruling whether or not this may indirectly assist a litigant when preparing an amended pleading.
In Leigh v. Smith, 503 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), this court ruled that a signal from a judge which is designed to alert a party to make a motion or raise an objection is sufficient, by itself, to warrant disqualification. The amendment of pleadings on the court’s own motion to withstand an opponent’s motion to dismiss is similarly sufficient.
As in Leigh v. Smith, the petition for writ of prohibition in this case is facially sufficient to require this court to order the respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue. On February 14, 1994 this court issued the order to show cause in accordance with Rule 9.100(f), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. No response has been filed, thus cause has not been shown why the writ should not issue. The respondent is prohibited from further acting in the ease below.
WRIT ISSUED.
HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. The Honorable Patti Englander Henning, 678 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ent judge follows our advice and remains silent. This concern arises only in those cases where the adversarial party — for whatever reason — also does not respond. In Daugherty v. McNeal, 643 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Paulson v. Evander, 633 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), the fifth district issued the writs after no response to the court’s order to show cause had been filed. In practical terms, there may be those times that both parties desire that another judge hear the ease or where an adversar…
Authorities Cited
- Leigh v. Smith, 503 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)