DOUGLAS WALKER, APPELLANT,

v.

DAVID ELLIS, ET AL., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2009-12-22

No. 1D08-5925

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

28 So. 3d 91 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2009) Positive Treatment

Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Douglas Walker, an incarcerated pro se litigant, appealed a circuit court's dismissal of his mandamus petition as frivolous and imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal and imposed comprehensive sanctions against Walker, prohibiting him from filing new actions in the court without attorney representation, due to his pattern of abuse constituting his twenty-sixth filing in that court.

Holding

The circuit court correctly applied section 57.085 to find the action frivolous and malicious and properly dismissed it. The court's direction for disciplinary referral was clearly authorized by section 944.279. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal and imposed comprehensive sanctions, prohibiting Walker from initiating new actions in the court unless represented by a licensed attorney, and instructing the Clerk to reject all future pro se filings.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court may dismiss a petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous or malicious under section 57.085, Florida Statutes.

[2] Section 944.279, Florida Statutes, authorizes a court to direct the Clerk of Courts to forward a dismissal order to a correctional facility for administrative proceedings…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“Appellant has failed to demonstrate any basis for reversal of the trial court's order, and the order is summarily AFFIRMED.”
Establishes the core holding affirming the trial court's dismissal of the frivolous mandamus petition.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Douglas Walker is an inmate who filed a petition for writ of mandamus in circuit court. The circuit court determined the petition was frivolous or mal…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Abuse Of Judicial Process Sanctions For Frivolous Filings Frivolous Litigation Petition For Writ Of Mandamus

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Douglas Walker, challenges the circuit court’s determination that his petition for writ of mandamus was frivolous, dismissal of the action, and direction to the Clerk of Courts to forward a copy of the order to the correctional facility for appropriate disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes. Because this is Appellant’s twenty-sixth action in this court,1 we ordered him to show cause why this court should not summarily affirm the order on review, under rule 9.315, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; sanction Appellant pursuant to rule 9.410, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure for filing a frivolous appeal; and why such sanctions should not include a direction to the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pro se filings Appellant submits to this *93Court. Appellant responded with a “Motion to Stay Pending Review” which urged the court to consider the merits of his appeal.

Appellant has failed to show cause why the trial court’s order should not be summarily affirmed. The court correctly applied section 57.085, Florida Statutes, to find the action frivolous or malicious and to dismiss the action. §§ 57.085(8) & (9), Fla. Stat. Section 944.279, Florida Statutes, clearly provides authority for the court’s direction to the Clerk of Courts to send a copy of the order to the correctional institution for appropriate administrative proceedings. Appellant has failed to demonstrate any basis for reversal of the trial court’s order, and the order is summarily AFFIRMED. Fla. R.App. P. 9.315(a).

Appellant’s response to the order to show cause fails to justify his filings in this court and others which are numerous to the point of abuse of the judicial process. The exercise of this court’s inherent authority to regulate and sanction disruptive litigants is warranted here. See Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 790 So.2d 398 (Fla.2001); Maddrie v. Colton, 998 So.2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Accordingly, Douglas Walker, DC# 637039, is now prohibited from initiating any new action in this court. The Clerk of this Court is instructed to reject any future filings submitted by Walker unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. If Mr. Walker violates this order, he may be subject to additional sanctions. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

. Appellant previously initiated the following in this court: Walker v. Moore, 1D99-1202; Walker v. Crosby, 874 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walker v. Crosby, 1D03-2563; Walker v. Crosby, 886 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walker v. Crosby, 881 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walker v. Crosby, 888 So.2d 20 (Fla.2004); Walker v. Crosby, 906 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA) rev. dismissed, Walker v. Crosby, 913 So.2d 599 (Fla.2005); Walker v. Crosby, 1D04-3399; Walker v. Crosby, 891 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Walker v. McDonough, 924 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Walker v. McDonough, 937 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Walker v. Crosby, 1D05-4958; Walker v. McDonough, 959 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Walker v. State, 1D06-3943; Walker v. McDonough, 958 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Walker v. McDonough, 1D06-5383; Walker v. McDonough, 1D06-5426; Walker v. McDonough, 1D06-5458; 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. McDonough, 936 So.2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Walker v. State, 941 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Walker v. McDonough, 968 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Walker v. McDonough, 967 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Walker v. Cullumber, 978 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Walker v. McDonough, 970 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); and Walker v. McDonough, 929 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Brown v. Crews, 120 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)

…should not include a direction to the Clerk of this Court to reject any future filings submitted by Appellant unless Appellant is represented by a member of the Florida Bar. See Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Walker v. Ellis, 28 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). No response has been filed. Appellant has failed to show cause why this court should not summarily affirm the order on appeal pursuant to Rule 9.315, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court correctly dismissed the…

Authorities Cited

Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001)
Walker v. Ellis, 989 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
Walker v. McDONOUGH, 929 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Maddrie v. Colton, 998 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
Walker v. McDONOUGH, 967 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
Walker v. McNEIL, 2 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
Jones v. State, 891 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
Thomas v. State, 891 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

DOUGLAS WALKER, APPELLANT, v. DAVID ELLIS, ET AL., APPELLEE

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

DOUGLAS WALKER, APPELLANT,

v.

DAVID ELLIS, ET AL., APPELLEE