MICHAEL CHARLES DESUE, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH S. TUCKER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND CALHOUN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, WARDEN, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Court of Appeal affirmed and expanded sanctions against a pro se litigant who violated a prior prohibition on filing pleadings in a specific case. The court barred the petitioner from all future pro se filings in the appellate court and referred him for disciplinary procedures at the correctional institution where he is incarcerated.
The court held that DeSue's continued pro se filings constitute an abuse of the legal process and barred him from any future pro se filings in the appellate court. The court also directed referral for disciplinary procedures at the correctional institution pursuant to Florida Statutes section 944.279.
[1] A court may sanction a party by prohibiting future pro se pleadings concerning a specific case number.
[2] A pro se filing that violates a prior sanction order prohibiting such filings will be stricken as unauthorized.
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“it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”
Establishes the procedural requirement that courts must give notice and opportunity to respond before imposing a complete bar on pro se filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Michael Charles DeSue had previously been sanctioned by a panel of this court with a prohibition against future pro se pleadings concerning…
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 Disciplinary Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner was previously sanctioned by a panel of judges of this court which included a prohibition against any future pro se pleadings concerning Bay County Circuit Court case number 92-0266. Petitioner was warned that any violation of the sanction order could result in referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.
This pro se petition seeks belated appeal of a circuit court order which de*152nied a petition for writ of habeas corpus concerning Bay County Circuit Court case number 92-0266. Because this pro se filing is a violation of this court’s prior sanction order, the petition seeking belated appeal is stricken as unauthorized.
Based on this court’s prior sanction order, petitioner was directed to show cause why further sanctions should not be imposed. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (recognizing the potential for abuse of the right to pro se access to the courts but declaring “it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”); Butler v. State, 953 So.2d 12, 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requiring a Spencer order before barring either future pro se pleadings or imposing other sanctions). 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 pro se filings have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from any future pro se filings in this court. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings from Michael Charles DeSue unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. In addition, a certified copy of this opinion shall be provided to the Florida Department of Corrections to be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the department as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
WOLF, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desue v. Jones, 213 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2017)…Fourteenth Judicial Circuit and the First District. His repeated attempts to obtain such relief resulted in both the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit and the First District barring him from filing any further pro se requests for relief. Desue v. Tucker, 100 So. 3d 151 (Fla. [*802] 1st DCA 2012); State v. Desue, No. 92-CF-266 (Fla. 14th Cir. Ct. Apr. 25, 2007). Desue has filed twenty-six other petitions or notices with this Court since 2000, the vast majority of which have concerned his 1987 forgery convictions an…
-
Brown v. Crews, 120 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…his appeal, Appellant has abused the judicial process and hindered the ability of this Court to devote its resources to the timely consideration of genuine disputes and col-orable claims by those who have not abused the system. See, Desue v. Tucker, 100 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008); Brown v. McNeil, 22 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The order on appeal is AFFIRMED. In addition, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitio…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Sanford Paul Butler v. State, 953 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)