DON T. KOZICH, APPELLANT,
v.
D. DAVID KELLER, ETC., ET AL, APPELLEES
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.
Don Kozich, proceeding pro se, appealed a 1998 injunction and final judgment barring him from filing further pleadings without attorney representation, seeking to dissolve the injunction and stay the judgment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed, finding that Kozich's 2008 motion merely repeated meritless claims previously rejected and violated the 1998 judgment itself.
The court summarily affirmed the denial of Kozich's motion, finding that his initial brief failed to identify any legal error and merely repeated the same scandalous and impertinent claims asserted unsuccessfully over ten or more years prior, and that the motion itself violated the 1998 judgment.
[1] A party who has repeatedly filed frivolous lawsuits and abused the judicial process may be barred from filing further pleadings unless signed by a licensed attorney.
[2] Motions that merely re-argue previously adjudicated issues and present scandalous or impertinent claims are properly denied.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Mr. Kozich has no constitutional right to harass the court and state officials with malicious lawsuits.”
Establishes the basis for the 1998 injunction against Kozich's pro se filings, grounded in the court's finding of malicious abuse of process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1998, the Circuit Court found that Kozich had filed twenty-eight pro se lawsuits in Broward Circuit Court between 1985 and 1998 (at least twenty-tw…
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 Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Don T. Kozich, pro se, appeals a January 2008 Order of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Circuit, Broward County,1 denying his verified motion to dissolve an injunction and to stay a final judgment, each entered in 1998. Kozich also appeals the denial of his motion for rehearing entered in February 2008.
Importantly, the 1998 rulings sought to be modified by Kozich found that he had filed twenty-eight pro se lawsuits in the Broward Circuit Court between 1985 and 1998, at least twenty-two of which were filed after 1990; that Kozich had filed other pro se lawsuits as well “attempting to relitigate questions of law and fact that have previously been adjudicated”; that he had “maliciously filed this complaint in order to abuse the judicial process, resulting in a tremendous burden on the Court’s already heavy caseload and an obstruction to the application of justice in more meritorious causes”; and that “Mr. Kozich has no constitutional right to harass the court and state officials with malicious lawsuits.” Kozich was barred from filing further pleadings in the case unless signed by an attorney licensed to practice in Florida and in good standing with The Florida Bar.
Kozich’s 2008 motion to dissolve the injunction and stay final judgments, though ostensibly filed pursuant to Florida Rules *1103of Civil Procedure 1.540, 1.550, and 1.560, was itself a violation of the 1998 judgment, of course, but this was apparently insufficient to deter Kozich. Kozich merely re-argued in the 2008 motion the conclusory allegations asserted unsuccessfully in the many proceedings before the 1998 injunction and judgment, outlining an alleged conspiracy directed against him by insurers, judges, The Florida Bar, the Broward Bar, and the Dade Bar.
Upon their review of the initial brief, several of the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Kozich responded to the motion to dismiss, and he also filed motions to strike the motion to dismiss, for sanctions, and for oral argument.
Upon our consideration of the initial brief, we deny each of Kozich’s pending motions and summarily affirm the orders below under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315. The initial brief does not identify any legal error below, and it does nothing more than repeat the same scandalous and impertinent claims that were asserted ten or more years ago. Samples include: “[two lawyers] created the tangled web of deceit and confusion”; “Kozich is only trying to sort out the confusion purposefully created by the appellees to cover their tracks”; “[t]he fraud on the court also extends to the 4th DCA because ... [it] denied all motions for fees”; and “[certain lawyers] were sleeping with the enemy, being the insurers here.”
The Court — and Mr. Kozich as well, if he could only be induced to realize it — ■ should not spend further time on these meritless claims.
Affirmed.