PHILLIP VAN ZANT, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, 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 denied the petition for writ of certiorari and barred the petitioner from future pro se filings in this court regarding his 2001 parole revocation due to abuse of the legal process through repeated frivolous attacks.
A litigant who repeatedly and frivolously attacks a parole revocation through pro se filings may be barred from future pro se filings in that court after notice and opportunity to respond.
[1] A court may bar a litigant from future pro se filings challenging a conviction or sentence when the litigant has repeatedly and frivolously attacked the judgment, provide…
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 intelligencePetitioner Van Zant repeatedly filed pro se petitions attacking the revocation of his parole from a 1979 judgment and sentence in Leon County Circuit …
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
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.
Due to petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking the revocation of his parole, this court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.
As such, because petitioner’s continued and repeated attacks on his parole revocation have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court challenging the 2001 revocation of parole from the judgment and sentence imposed on December 19, 1979, in Leon County Circuit Court case number 76-00450. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Petitioner is warned that any filings which violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section *623944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.410.
ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…., Baldwin v. State, 104 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Williams v. State, 102 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Ward v. State, 75 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Obojes v. State, 946 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). . Van Zant v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 94 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). . Pflaum v. Pflaum, 974 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . Johnson v. Wilbur, 981 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . Winford v. Pella Window and Doors, case number 1D13-2847 (September 24, 2013, order imposing sanctions); Glind…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)