RICHARD E. GOURLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
This case addresses the appellate court's authority to restrict a pro se litigant's future filings based on a history of abuse of the judicial system. The court upheld its imposition of restrictions on Richard Gourley's pro se appeals and pleadings related to his 1972 first-degree murder conviction.
The court upheld its authority to restrict Gourley from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to his 1972 conviction, requiring that any future filings must be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney.
[1] A court may restrict a pro se litigant's future filings if the court provides the litigant with notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] Repeated abuse of the judicial system through frivolous filings can justify a court's "enough is enough" rule, restricting future pro se actions.
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“court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond”
Establishes the legal standard from State v. Spencer that permits appellate courts to restrict pro se filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard E. Gourley was convicted in 1972 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His original conviction was affirmed in 1973. Over…
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 Judicial System cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
We have received Gourley’s response to our show cause order issued pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). Finding no merit to the response, and because Gourley has repeatedly abused the judicial system in this regard, we think he qualifies for this court’s “Enough is enough” rule. See, e.g., Werts v. State, 722 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we prohibit Richard E. Gourley from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his 1972 conviction and sentence to life imprisonment for first degree murder, which was affirmed in Gourley v. State, 285 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Any further pleadings filed in this court relating to his judgment and sentence in that case must be reviewed and signed by an attorney, licensed to practice law in this state. The clerk of the court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se filings or pleadings from Gourley related to lower court case number 71-3869-CFA.1
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . Gourley's prior history in this court is protracted, involving appeals from the denial of numerous postconviction motions and several petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Gourley v. State, 787 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Gourley v. State, 787 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Gourley v. State, 653 So,2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed, 660 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1995); Gourley v. State, 647 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review dismissed, 654 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1995); Gourley v. State, 620 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Gourley v. State, 608 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gourley v. State, 595 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Gourley v. State, 484 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 5th DCA), appeal dismissed, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986); Gourley v. State, 474 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Gourley v. State, 432 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), appeal dismissed, 458 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1984); Gourley v. State, 411 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…e and an opportunity to respond). Having received and found no merit to his response, and because Medberry has repeatedly abused the judicial system in this regard, he qualifies for this court’s “enough is enough” rule. See, e.g., Gourley v. State, 820 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Werts v. State, 722 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).2 Accordingly, we prohibit Daniel C. Med-berry from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions r…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Gourley v. State, 787 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Gourley v. State, 608 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Gourley v. State, 432 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Werts v. State, 722 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- J.C. v. State, 722 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Gourley v. State, 285 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Gourley v. State, 653 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)