DOUGLAS WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 held that a sanctions order prohibiting pro se filings does not bar an action commenced before the sanctions order was entered.
Appellant filed a pro se tort complaint. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order designating him a vexatious litigant and prohibiting further p…
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 Commencement Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Douglas Walker, seeks review of the trial court’s order dismissing his case in light of an order imposing sanctions on him. The appellant argues that the order imposing sanctions did not bar the instant action because it was entered after he filed his complaint in the instant case. We agree and reverse and remand accordingly.
On April 13, 2007, the appellant filed a pro se tort complaint against James Mc-Donough, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and several correctional officers personally. On April 17, 2007, in a different action, the trial court entered an order designating the appellant a vexatious litigant and imposing sanctions prohibiting the appellant from bringing any pro se actions. On May 17, 2007, the trial court ordered the appellee to show cause why the relief requested by the appellant should not be granted. In its response, *1069the appellee argued that the order imposing sanctions prohibited the appellant from filing his complaint. The trial court agreed and, on October 30, 2007, entered an order quashing the show cause order and dismissing the case in light of the order imposing sanctions.
The appellant’s action is considered commenced upon filing of the complaint. See Katsock v. Kulbaski, 985 So.2d 55, 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.050. In Walker v. Ellis, 989 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), the appellant filed a mandamus petition before the order imposing sanctions was entered against him. Id. The trial court relied on the order imposing sanctions to dismiss the appellant’s petition. Id. This Court held that the appellant’s action was not barred because it was filed before the trial court entered its order imposing sanctions. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, because the appellant filed his complaint before the order imposing sanctions was entered, the trial court’s order dismissing the appellant’s complaint was error.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. Ellis, 28 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…06-5458; Walker v. McDonough, 967 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Walker v. McDonough, 973 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Walker v. McNeil, 982 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Walker v. McNeil, 989 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Walker v. McNeil, 2 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Walker v. Ellis, 989 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); and Walker v. McNeil, 1 D08-4971. The court notes that Appellant initiated the following in other courts: Walker v. Brantly, 747 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Walker v. McD…
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. Ellis, 989 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Katsock v. Kulbaski, 985 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)