JONATHAN STEELE, 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 court held that the pro se litigant was abusing the judicial process and should be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in the specific case. The court also dismissed the litigant's pending petitions.
The court issued a show cause order to a pro se litigant regarding his filings. The litigant responded, but the court found his actions constituted an…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
We issued a Spencer1 show cause order directing Jonathan Steele 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 Mr. Steele’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 Jonathan Steele from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Case No. CR96-CF-3036. 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).
We note, as well, that since filing his response to the Spencer order, Mr. Steele has filed an “Amended Motion/Petition For Writ of Mandamus,” which he also seeks to voluntarily dismiss. Enough is certainly enough.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS and AMENDED MOTION/PETI TION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ARE DISMISSED and PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. . State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)…rt of Appeal has previously barred Steele from filing any petitions for extraordinary writ relief related to his conviction and sentence unless such requests for relief are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Steele v. State, 989 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). On or about October 1, 2008, Steele filed the instant petition and a supplement thereto. Steele requests us to compel the Department of Corrections to allow him to inspect and copy records related to his conviction. Steele asse…
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)