JAMES ARTHUR LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 First District Court of Appeal imposed sanctions against James Arthur Lee, a prolific pro se litigator, barring him from filing further cases without representation by a licensed Florida attorney. The court found that Lee's 64 filings since 2002 had consumed substantial court resources while yielding no meaningful relief.
The court imposed sanctions requiring Lee to secure representation by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing within ten days for any active pending cases, with failure to do so resulting in dismissal. Additionally, the clerk is directed to refuse all future pro se filings from Lee without filing them and to reference this order.
[1] A court may bar a pro se litigant from filing further documents if their extensive litigation history has yielded no meaningful results and has required substantial expen…
[2] A court may require a pro se litigant to secure representation by counsel in pending cases if the litigant has a history of non-compliance and has failed to show cause wh…
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“Lee has been an extremely active litigator in this court whose cases have required substantial expenditure of staff resources without any meaningful result.”
Establishes the basis for considering sanctions—the cumulative burden of frivolous filings on court resources.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee filed approximately 64 cases in the appellate court since February 2002, either under the name "James Arthur Lee" or "James A. Lee." Of these case…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, James Arthur Lee seeks review of an order of the Circuit Court for Bradford County which dismissed his mandamus complaint for failure to pay the filing fee or submit the paperwork necessary to obtain a waiver of that fee. Although this court’s fee has neither been paid nor waived, Lee filed a motion for injunctive relief against certain officials or staff members of the Florida Department of Corrections. In processing that motion, it came to this court’s attention that Lee has been an extremely active litigator in this court whose cases have required substantial expenditure of staff resources without any meaningful result. An order was issued which directed Lee’s attention to the fact that his 43 cases filed with this court since February 2002 had yielded no relief to him and asked him to show cause why he should not be barred from henceforth appearing in proper person before this court.
Further examination of this court’s records revealed 20 other cases filed with this court under the name “James A. Lee” rather than “James Arthur Lee” and that another proceeding has been commenced by Lee since the show cause order issued. Of these 64 cases, 50 have been dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or for noncompliance with orders relating to service, appendices, or other administrative matters. Six cases have been transferred to other courts, seven cases are pending, and one petition for writ of mandamus was denied on the merits.
We have considered the response of appellant to the order to show cause but he has failed to demonstrate why the proposed sanction should not be imposed. See Martin v. State, 833 So. 2d 756 (Fla.2002); Attwood v. Eighth Circuit Court, Union County, 667 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that James Arthur Lee, also known as James A. Lee, shall secure the filing of a notice of appearance by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar in any active case now pending before this court in which he appears as appellant or petitioner within ten days of date of this order, failing which such cases shall be dismissed. Further, the clerk of this court is directed to accept no further pro se filings from Lee; if received, they shall be returned to him without filing and with a reference to this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALLEN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…rces of this court. We conclude that sanctions are appropriate in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and this court’s authority to control its docket. See May v. Barthet, 934 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.2006); Lee v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 873 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Accordingly, we hold that Robert Michael Ardis is barred from proceeding pro se in any case before this court. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings from Ardis unless they are signed by a member in…
-
Pflaum v. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, 974 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…erein, we conclude that imposition of a sanction is appropriate in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and this court’s authority to control its docket. See May v. Barthet, 934 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.2006); Lee v. Fla. Dep’t of Com., 873 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Accordingly, Peter E. Pflaum is hereby prohibited from appearing before this court as appellant or petitioner unless represented by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. He is permitted 15 days from the date of this orde…
-
Rayvon Boatman v. McDONOUGH, 973 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…cause but finds that it fails to demonstrate why a sanction is not appropriate. We therefore find that the imposition of a sanction against Rayvon Boatman is appropriate. See Martin v. State, 833 So. 2d 756 (Fla.2002); Lee v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 873 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Attwood v. Eighth Circuit Court, Union County, 667 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). It is hereby ordered that Rayvon Boatman shall secure the filing of a notice of appearance…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Attwood v. Eighth Cir. Court, 667 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Martin v. State, 833 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2002)