JERMAINE A. HARRIS, 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.
Florida appellate court imposed sanctions prohibiting a serial litigant from filing pro se pleadings in the court unless represented by counsel, finding his repeated filings frivolous and his response to a show cause order patently frivolous.
A court may sanction a serial pro se litigant by prohibiting future filings unless represented by counsel when the litigant's repeated petitions and appeals are frivolous.
[1] A court may sanction a serial pro se litigant by requiring counsel representation for all future filings when the litigant's repeated petitions are frivolous and abuse th…
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 intelligenceAppellant Harris filed as appellant or petitioner 17 times since 1998 in the First District Court of Appeal, repeatedly filing pro se petitions for ex…
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 Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
By order dated April 5, 2011, this court instructed Appellant to show cause why sanctions, including a prohibition against appearing as a litigant in this court unless represented by counsel, should not be imposed against him. We did so because the records of this court reflect that Appellant has been an appellant or petitioner in this court 17 times since 1998. Additionally, Appellant has repeatedly filed pro se petitions for extraordinary relief in the courts below as well as this court. He has also appealed the trial court’s dismissals of those improper petitions.
Appellant timely responded to our order to show cause. In that response, Appel*654lant argues that this court, from which he has sought relief so often, never had the jurisdiction to entertain those entreaties in the first place. This response is not only unpersuasive, it is patently frivolous. Accordingly, in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Appellant unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Under the sanction imposed herein, Appellant is not being denied access to the courts; he may petition the court through the assistance of counsel, whenever such counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WOLF, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.