DOUGLAS T. EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2012-09-12
No. 3D12-865
Before WELLS, C.J., and SUAREZ and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
96 So. 3d 1154 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 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

Edwards, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed multiple appeals and motions regarding his 1994 conviction. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal imposed sanctions precluding Edwards from filing further pro se filings relating to that conviction unless represented by a licensed Florida attorney, finding that he had become a vexatious litigant.


Holding

The court concluded that Edwards had become a vexatious litigant and directed the Clerk to refuse to accept any further appeals, pleadings, motions, petitions or other papers relating to Edwards' conviction and sentence in the original case unless filed and signed by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing.


Headnotes

[1] A court may preclude a party from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, or motions when the party has repeatedly filed frivolous claims.

[2] There is no constitutional right to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

“We recognize that incarcerated persons should and do have a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations.”

Establishes the principle that incarcerated persons retain broad procedural rights to challenge their convictions.

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

Edwards was convicted and sentenced in lower tribunal case number 94-21946. Over approximately 18 years, Edwards filed numerous pro se appeals, pleadi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
WELLS, Chief Judge.

*1155WELLS, Chief Judge.

In Edwards v. State, 96 So.3d 900, 2012 WL 3031521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (table), this court affirmed the denial of Edwards’ most recent pro se filing with this court concerning his conviction and sentence imposed in lower tribunal number 94-21946. That same day this court ordered Edwards to show cause why he should not be precluded from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, or motions in this court regarding the conviction and sentence imposed in this case.

As this court has stated:
“We recognize that incarcerated persons should and do have a full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarcerations.” Hepburn v. State, 934 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Johnson v. State, 915 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). There is, however, no constitutional right to file a frivolous lawsuit. See Hepburn, 934 So.2d at 517-18; see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 n. 3,116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (“Depriving someone of a frivolous claim ... deprives him of nothing at all, except perhaps the punishment of ... sanctions.”). As this Court stated in Lanier v. State, 983 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), Hicks v. State, 974 So.2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), and Minor v. State, 963 So.2d 797, 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), “there comes a point where enough is enough.”

Barber v. State, 994 So.2d 376, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

After carefully considering Edwards’ response to this court’s show cause order, see State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), and this court’s independent review of the many pro se filings made by Edwards in this court arising out of lower tribunal case number 94-21946,1 we conclude that Edwards has reached the point where enough is enough. We therefore direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept for filing in this court any further appeals, pleadings, motions, petitions or other papers relating to Edwards’ conviction and sentence in lower tribunal number 94-21946, unless they are filed and signed by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw