FELTON EPPS, 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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari to review a trial court order prohibiting Epps from filing further pro se motions. The court held that before imposing such sanctions, the trial court must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to show cause, which was lacking here.
A trial court must provide a pro se litigant with notice and a meaningful opportunity to show cause before prohibiting further pro se filings. A motion for rehearing does not constitute a sufficient, meaningful opportunity to be heard when the opportunity must be provided before rights are decided.
[1] A court must provide a pro se litigant with notice and an opportunity to show cause before prohibiting further pro se filings.
[2] Notice and an opportunity to respond must be provided before a litigant's right of access to the courts is decided.
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“Before prohibiting further pro se filings, the court must give a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for imposing sanctions on 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 intelligenceEpps, a pro se litigant, had filed repeated motions. The trial court granted the state's motion for an injunction prohibiting further pro se filings o…
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
PER CURIAM.
We grant certiorari review of a trial court’s order prohibiting Epps from filing further pro se motions. He complains that the court entered the order without giving him notice and without issuing an order for him to show cause why he should not be prohibited from appearing pro se.
Before prohibiting further pro se filings, the court must give a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
To achieve the best balance of a litigant’s right of access to courts and the need of the courts to prevent repetitious and frivolous pleadings, it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.
Further, providing notice and an opportunity to respond through the issuance of an order to show cause also serves to generate a more complete record. If the litigant is thereafter denied further pro se access to the courts, the appellate courts will have an enhanced ability to determine whether the denial of access is an appropriate sanction under the circumstances.
Id. at 48-49.
The record reflects that Epps did not have notice and an opportunity to respond. The order in this case states that it granted the state’s motion for an injunction on the same day the state’s motion was filed.
We do not accept the state’s suggestion that Epps had adequate notice by the order and opportunity to respond by way of a motion for rehearing. A motion for rehearing is not a sufficient, meaningful opportunity to be heard. To be fair or meaningful, the opportunity to be heard must be provided “before rights are decided.” See Peoples Bank of Indian River County v. State, Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 395 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla.1981) (citation omitted). To satisfy procedural due process, an opportunity to be heard must be meaningful and complete and “not merely colorable or illusive.” Rucker v. City of Ocala, 684 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citation omitted).
We recognize that in Filmore v. State, 935 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), this court upheld an order granting the state’s motion for an injunction to prohibit the defendant in that case from filing further pro se motions. However, Filmore did not reply to the state’s motion despite adequate time to do so. Therefore, this court concluded the procedure satisfied Spencer because the defendant had notice and sufficient opportunity to respond, but failed to do so.
Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, we quash the trial court’s order, and remand for further proceedings.
STEVENSON, C.J., STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Merlande Richard and Elie Richard v. Bank of Am., 258 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Fitzgerald v. State, 18 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ed sanction and an opportunity to respond thereto, we reverse the order prohibiting Fitzgerald from filing further pro se pleadings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999); Morgan v. State, 983 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Epps v. State, 941 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). On remand, should the trial court choose to pursue this sanction again, it first must provide Fitzgerald notice and an opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not be imposed. See Jordan v. State, 760 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2…
-
Harris v. Martye S. Gattie, 263 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…128 So. 3d 179, 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (concluding that an order sanctioning a pro se litigant and prohibiting future pro se filings is not a final, appealable order and converting the appeal to a petition for writ of certiorari); Epps v. State, 941 So. 2d 1206, 1206-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reviewing order precluding a party from filing further pleadings pro se through certiorari); Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (treating notice of appeal of order barring further pro se pl…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Rucker v. City OF Ocala & Crawford & Co., 684 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Peoples Bank OF Indian River Cnty. (proposed new bank) v. State, 395 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1981)
- Carson Filmore v. State, 935 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)