CHANCEY O. REDDING, 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.
The court barred a pro se litigant from filing further appeals and pleadings in his criminal case due to abuse of the judicial process.
A pro se litigant who abuses the judicial process by filing repetitive and frivolous pleadings may be prohibited from filing further pro se filings in a particular case.
[1] A pro se litigant may be barred from filing further pleadings in a particular case when the litigant abuses the judicial process through repetitive and frivolous filings,…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChancey Redding filed multiple pro se appeals, petitions, pleadings, and motions concerning his convictions and sentences in Orange County Case No. 19…
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 Disciplinary Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
We issued a Spencer1 show cause order directing Chancey 0. Redding [“Redding”] to demonstrate “why he should not be prohibited from filing any appeal, petition, pleading or motion pertaining to the convictions and sentences rendered in the above case.” Having carefully considered Redding’s response, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.
Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Redding from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Case No.1994-CF-4990. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case. Any further pleadings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“enough is enough”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur. . State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)