ENOCH E. DINKENS, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Enoch Dinkens sought certiorari and mandamus review to challenge a circuit court order prohibiting him from filing further pro se postconviction filings. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the sanction, finding Dinkens had filed a series of meritless, frivolous pro se petitions and appeals, and dismissed his certiorari request as untimely.
The appellate court denied mandamus relief and dismissed the certiorari request as untimely. The court affirmed the sanctions imposed by the circuit court, prohibiting Dinkels from filing any further pro se papers concerning his conviction and sentence unless filed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
[1] A court may prohibit a party from filing further pro se papers when the party has a history of submitting meritless and frivolous filings.
[2] A court may direct its clerk not to accept future filings from a party unless they are filed by a licensed attorney.
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“The petition before the court is the latest in of a series of meritless, frivolous pro se petitions and appeals filed by petitioner.”
Establishes the court's finding that Dinkels engaged in a pattern of frivolous filings justifying sanctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDinkels filed a series of meritless, frivolous pro se petitions and appeals related to his conviction and sentence in Nassau County Circuit Court case…
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 Sanctions For Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition filed in April 2013, Enoch E. Dinkens, Jr., seeks certiorari review of a January 2013 order of the circuit court prohibiting him from submitting any further pro se postconviction filings. Alternatively, he requests that the court grant mandamus relief and direct removal of the sanction so that he may file another pro se motion for postconviction relief. We DENY the request for mandamus relief, and concluding that he failed to invoke the court’s jurisdiction in a timely fashion, DISMISS his request for certiorari review.
The petition before the court is the latest in of a series of meritless, frivolous pro se petitions and appeals filed by petitioner. We therefore directed him to show cause why sanctions, including but not limited to a prohibition on any further pro se filings in this Court, should not be imposed upon him. Petitioner’s response does not set forth a legal basis that would preclude the imposition of sanctions, nor does it establish that the imposition of sanctions is not warranted.
*267Accordingly, we hereby prohibit Enoch E. Dinkens, Jr., from filing any further pro se papers in this court concerning his conviction and sentence in Nassau County Circuit Court case number 06-914-CF. 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 944.279, Florida Statutes.
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part; SANCTION IMPOSED.
LEWIS, C.J., ROBERTS and ROWE, JJ., concur.