RANDALL T. PRATER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, 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.
The trial court's order barring a vexatious litigant from filing further actions without paying fees or retaining counsel is affirmed.
The plaintiff, Randall Prater, had initiated 22 cases in three years, seeking to proceed without paying filing fees, none of which yielded a meaningfu…
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, J.
Randall Prater appeals the trial court’s order barring him from filing further actions in that court without paying the filing fee or being represented by a member of the Florida Bar. We affirm.
Despite Prater’s argument to the contrary, the trial court’s order is not a dismissal on the merits. Rather, we consider the order to be solely an imposition of sanctions based upon previous frivolous filings by Prater. In the order the trial court stated:
The records of the clerk of court show that 22 cases have been initiated in this court by the plaintiff in the past 3 years. In all of the cases, the plaintiff sought to proceed without payment of the filing fee incurred under section 28.241, Florida Statutes. None of the cases produced a meaningful result for the plaintiff.
(citation omitted). The trial court found Prater to be a “vexatious litigant” as “at least 5 of his previous actions have been finally and adversely determined against [him]” in accordance with section 68.093(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2006). Accordingly, as a sanction, the trial court prohibited Prater from filing any further actions without either paying the filing fee or retaining counsel. See Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (finding courts have inherent power to prevent litigants from abusing court procedure).
Contrary to Prater’s contentions, a trial court’s inherent power to sanction vexatious litigants is not obliterated simply because such a litigant might stumble upon a procedural error now and again. Accordingly, if Prater wishes to pursue his contention that the Department of Corrections misapplied the rationale of Quigley v. Florida Department of Corrections, 745 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), he may do so by refiling his action in accordance with the order’s requirement that he either pay the filing fee or retain counsel.
AFFIRMED.
HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prater v. McDONOUGH, 947 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…(3), Fla. Stat. (2005) (explaining that prisoners may petition to initiate rule-making pursuant to section 120.54(7)). We do not, however, disturb the trial court’s sanctions order entered in a companion case. See Prater v. McDonough, No. 1D05-5027, 947 So. 2d 538, 2006 WL 3751499 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec.22, 2006). Accordingly, all further action in this case shall proceed in accordance with that order by requiring Prater to either pay the filing fee or retain counsel. REVERSED and REMANDED. KAHN, HAWKES and TH…
-
Steinberg v. Cudak, 429 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…r rehearing. [FOOTNOTE 1] The sanctions order is a final order on a collateral issue. See, e.g., Knezevich v. Serv. Fin. Co., LLC, 375 So. 3d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Clark v. Baney, 355 So. 3d 976, 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023); Prater v. McDonough, 947 So. 2d 538, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). [FOOTNOTE 2] His argument that the security requirement impacts his other pending cases has no merit. The trial court clearly limited the security requirement to cases before this judge, not to the plaintiff's cases before…
Authorities Cited
- Jimi L. Birge v. State, 620 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Quigley v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 745 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)