DANIEL C. MEDBERRY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Daniel Medberry, a pro se litigant with a history of abusive and repetitive filings, sought belated appeal of his criminal convictions. The Fifth District Court of Appeal imposed restrictions on Medberry's future filings, prohibiting him from filing pro se pleadings relating to his underlying criminal case and requiring any further filings to be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney.
The court may impose restrictions on pro se filings by a litigant who has abused the judicial process, requiring that any future pleadings relating to the underlying case be reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney. The court prohibited Medberry from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, and petitions relating to his criminal case.
[1] A litigant who repeatedly files identical pleadings, merely changing the cover page and party designations, abuses the judicial process.
[2] A court may restrict future pro se pleadings from a litigant after providing notice and an opportunity to respond.
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“it is an abuse of process for petitioner to resubmit same pleading, merely affixing a new cover page and changing the terms used to describe the parties”
Establishes that Medberry's conduct of resubmitting identical petitions with minor changes violates established precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedberry was convicted of sexual battery and other crimes in 1993. He appealed multiple times, with his initial appeal resulting in remand for resente…
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 Pro Se Litigant Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Several years ago, Daniel C. Medberry appealed his judgments and sentences entered in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. CR93-1697. This court upheld Med-berry’s judgments and sentences, except that his case was remanded for resentencing on his three sexual battery convictions. Medberry v. State, 699 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). After he was re-sentenced, Medberry again appealed, but this court per curiam affirmed without opinion. Medberry v. State, 718 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Medberry continued to attack his judgments and sentences by filing collateral motions.1 In fact, a review of his current 74-page request for a belated appeal shows that it is identical to his previously filed 74-page request for a belated appeal in Case No. 5D00-91. That previous petition was denied on the merits on February 18, 2000. After Medberry unsuccessfully sought rehearing here, he unsuccessfully sought review in the Florida Supreme Court. Medberry v. State, 763 So. 2d 1043 (Fla.2000).
When Medberry filed this identical petition almost two years later, he did what this court expressly stated was improper in Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(holding that it is an abuse of process for petitioner to resubmit same pleading, merely affixing a new cover page and changing the terms used to describe the parties); namely, he changed only the last page. Therefore, this court issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999)(holding that a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice 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 relating to Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. CR93-1697. 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 Florida. 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 Medberry related to Case No. CR93-1697.
DENIED.
SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ„ concur. . In addition to the four cases mentioned in this opinion, by our count, Medberry's other cases in this court regarding lower court No. CR93-1697 include: Nos. 5D01-122; 5D00-2783; 5D00-1570; 5D97-3454; 5D96-3407; and 5D96-3160.
. This current case is actually Medberry's 28th appearance in this court, but the other 18 appearances involve other lower court cases. He also has been barred from filing any further in forma pauperis civil filings in the federal system on the ground that he had had three or more prior law suits dismissed as being frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Medberry v. Butler, 185 F. 3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 959 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…pleadings or filings relating to those cases. See Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 908, 122 S.Ct. 2365, 153 L.Ed.2d 186 (2002); Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla.1999); Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), mandamus denied, 874 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.2004); Isley. PETITION FOR BELATED APPEAL DENIED. ORFINGER, MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
-
Travoris Lamar George v. State, 840 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…se pleadings or filings relating to that case. See Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 908, 122 S.Ct. 2365, 153 L.Ed.2d 186 (2002); Vickson v. Singletary, 734 So. 2d 376 (Fla.1999); Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED. PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
-
Williams v. State, 185 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ned by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept from Williams, as a petitioner or appellant, any further pro se pleadings or filings relating to that case. See Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS ARE PROHIBITED. BERGER, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur. . Williams v. State, 115 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (denial of 3.850 motion); Williams v. State, 84 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Medberry v. State, 699 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- 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, 820 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)