ROBERT ATTWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, 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.
Robert Attwood appealed the circuit court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot and imposed severe restrictions on Attwood's future filings, finding his litigation pattern constituted frivolous and abusive misuse of the judicial process.
The appeal is dismissed as moot. The court imposed an order requiring that all future notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief in civil matters filed by Attwood be rejected unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar, with such papers to be automatically placed in an inactive file and notices of appeal summarily stricken.
[1] A court may dismiss an appeal as moot if the underlying issue has been resolved.
[2] A court may take judicial notice of a litigant's extensive history of filing frivolous appeals and motions.
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“Plaintiff Attwood's abuse of this court has delayed the consideration of literally hundreds of other potentially meritorious claims.... In short, the court is not faced with a pro se litigant who, for lack of education or understanding, has filed one or two frivolous law suits. Attwood's pattern of filing in this court, and which appears to have continued elsewhere, is direct evidence of a willful and malicious attempt to obstruct this court's functions and to harass state prison officials.”
Federal court's characterization of Attwood's litigation pattern as intentional obstruction rather than good-faith but misguided legal efforts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttwood filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court, which was denied on jurisdictional grounds due to Attwood's pending appeal in ano…
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 Criminal Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
THE COURT:
Robert Attwood has sought this court’s review of an order of the Circuit Court which denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The denial was based on the trial court’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition because of Att-wood’s pending appeal in Case No. 95-1721. That appeal has been dismissed because Att-wood sought to appeal a non-appealable order. The present appeal is now moot and is hereby dismissed. Our dismissal, however, is not predicated solely on the foregoing circumstance, but rather the cumulative effect of Attwood’s actions which we deem to be a frivolous and abusive misuse of the judicial process. Such a conclusion is inescapable when we take judicial notice of the great number of filings of baseless appeals, petitions, and related unauthorized motions by Attwood in this court1 and in other courts.2 As was pointed out by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida:3
“Plaintiff Attwood’s abuse of this court has delayed the consideration of literally hundreds of other potentially meritorious claims....
In short, the court is not faced with a pro se litigant who, for lack of education or understanding, has filed one or two frivolous law suits. Attwood’s pattern of filing in this court, and which appears to have continued elsewhere, is direct evidence of a willful and malicious attempt to obstruct this court’s functions and to harass state prison officials.”
Accordingly, upon consideration of the above, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing all notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief in civil matters sent by or on behalf of Mr. Attwood not yet docketed by this court, unless submitted and signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Any such papers filed in violation of this order will be automatically placed in an inactive file, and any such notices of appeal received by this court from circuit courts will be summarily stricken by this court. All matters pertaining to prison conditions, medical needs and care, disciplinary actions and the like are considered civil in nature for purposes of this order. This order shall not apply to any criminal appeal filed by Mr. Attwood which directly concerns a judgment and sentence in a criminal case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THREADGILL, C.J., and CAMPBELL and BLUE, JJ., concur. . Through June 1, 1995, this court’s docket reflects 17 cases having been filed hy Attwood within the last six months.
. Attwood v. Singletary, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, TCA 92-40425-WS, report and recommendation of William Sherrill, United States Magistrate Judge, of October 25, 1993, as adopted by William Stafford, United States District Judge, in order of dismissal of February 18, 1994.
.Attwood v. Singletary, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, TCA 92-40425-WS, report and recommendation of William Sherrill, United States Magistrate Judge, of May 2, 1995, as adopted by order of United States District Judge, William Stafford, entered on June 8, 1995.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1995)…. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Similarly, the Second District Court of Appeal has already directed its clerk of court to reject all civil petitions and appeals filed by Attwood unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar. Attwood v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). These orders are not "without precedent. See, e.g., Martin v. Marko, 651 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Lowery v. Kaplan, 650 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Jenkins v. Singlet…
-
Attwood v. Eighth Cir. Court, 667 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Clerk. BOOTH, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . We note that Mr. Attwood has conducted himself in a similar manner in other courts. E.g., Attwood v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections, 660 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Attwood v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). . It also appeared to the court that Mr. Attwood may have been intentionally abusing the system, being unrestrained by normal costs of litigation. See In re Whitaker,- U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2, 130 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994). . The response i…
-
Huffman v. Singletary, 696 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…litigants. Therefore, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the time has come to prohibit any further pro se attacks by Huffman on his 1986 conviction and sentence. Therefore, consistent with our policy announced in Attwood v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we direct the clerk of this court to reject for filing all notices of appeal and petitions for extraordinary relief arising out of Huffman’s 1986 convictions. Any such papers filed in violation of this order will be automatically…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence