MATTIE LOMAX, PETITIONER,

v.

ALAN A. TAYLOR, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2014-10-30

No. SC13-1415

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

149 So. 3d 1135 Florida Supreme Court (2014) Positive Treatment

Cited by 3 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.

Holding

The court held that the petitioner should be sanctioned by being barred from filing future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief.

Headnotes

[1] A court may sanction a pro se litigant by barring them from filing future pro se pleadings if they have abused the judicial process through frivolous or inappropriate fil…

[2] A court must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctioning a litigant and prohibiting them from future pro se filings.

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

Facts & Procedural History

The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which was dismissed. The court retained jurisdiction to pursue sanctions due to the volume of m…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Abuse Of Judicial Process Show Cause Order Sanctions For Frivolous Filings Pro Se Litigant

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the Court on the petition of Mattie Lomax for a writ of mandamus.1 In an order dated April 29, 2014, the Court dismissed the petition pursuant to Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930 (Fla.2000), but expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner based upon the volume of her meritless and inappropriate filings. Lomax v. Taylor, No. SC13-1415, 2014 WL 1778010 (Fla. Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished); see Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). Petitioner was directed to show cause why she should not be barred from filing in this Court ahy future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief.2 Petitioner did not respond to this Court’s order. We now impose such sanctions upon petitioner.

Since 2004, petitioner has initiated forty-three other cases in this Court that have either been denied, transferred or dismissed.3 This Court has chosen to sanc*1137tion pro se petitioners who have abused the judicial process and otherwise misused this Court’s limited judicial resources by-filing frivolous, non-meritorious, or otherwise inappropriate filings. Such petitioners have been barred from initiating further proceedings in this Court unless their pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief were filed under the signature of a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., 136 So.3d 507 (Fla.2014); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So.3d 926 (Fla.2013); Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla.2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008). Petitioner has failed to show cause why she should not be so sanctioned.

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future

pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Mattie Lo-max a/k/a Tama Twynette, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Lomax’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

. See Lomax v. Capital Rental Agency, Inc., No. SC04-216 (Fla. Aug. 16, 2004) (petition for writ of mandamus transferred); Lomax v. Capital Rental Agency, Inc., 907 So.2d 1171 (Fla.2005) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Procacci Dev. Corp., 945 So.2d 1290 (Fla.2006) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Capital Rental Agency, 957 So.2d 636' (Fla.2007) (table) (mandamus denied); Lomax v. State, No. SC11-11 (Fla. Jan. 7, 2011) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 79 So.3d 745 (Fla.2012) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 91 So.3d 132 (Fla.2012) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 107 So.3d 405 (Fla.2012) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 116 So.3d 1261 (Fla.2012) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. City of Hialeah Gardens, No. SC12-2695 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Taylor, No. SC12-2707 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Ruvin, No. SC12-2709 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. City of Hialeah Gardens, No. SC12-2715 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. City of Hialeah Gardens, No. SC12-2718 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office, No. SC12-2720 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, No. SC12-2721 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. City of Miami Police Dep’t, No. SC13-11 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 110 So.3d 441 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Twynette v. Jays Real Estate Venture, 114 So.3d 181 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Twynette v. Dri-Velt, Inc., 130 So.3d 694 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC., No. SC13-333 (Fla. Mar. 8, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. City of Miami Police Dep't, 115 So.3d 1001 *1137(Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. State, 115 So.3d 1001 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Reynolds, No. SC12-2719 (Fla. Apr. 26, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 130 So.3d 693 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 116 So.3d 1261 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 118 So.3d 221 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Lomax v. Capital Rental Agency, Inc., No. SC12-2751 (Fla. Aug. 1, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Twynette v. Ivory, No. SC13-981 (Fla. Aug. 19, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 126 So.3d 1057 (Fla.2013) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Ruvin, 129 So.3d 1068 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus dismissed); Lomax v. James, No. SC13-1985 (Fla. Nov. 7, 2013) (notice of appeal transferred); Lomax v. Citrus Health Network, Inc., 131 So.3d 789 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus denied); Lomax v. The City of Hialeah Gardens, 133 So.3d 527 (Fla.2014) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. City of Hialeah Gardens, 133 So.3d 527 (Fla.2014) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Capital Rental Agency, Inc., 134 So.3d 448 (Fla.2014) (table) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. 50 State Security Services, Inc., 135 So.3d 288 (Fla.2014) (table) (mandamus dismissed); Lomax v. Officer Reynolds, 135 So.3d 288 (Fla.2014) (table) (notice of appeal dismissed); Lomax v. Reynolds, 135 So.3d 288 (Fla.2014) (table) (all writs petition dismissed); Lomax v. Reynolds, 135 So.3d 288 (Fla.2014) (table) (all writs petition dismissed); Lomax v. Capital Rental Agency, Inc., No. SC13-2085 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2014) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Ivory, No. SC13-2087 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2014) (petition for review dismissed); Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. SC13-975 (Fla. Mar. 24, 2014) (mandamus dismissed).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Harris v. Martye S. Gattie, 263 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)

…h notice and an opportunity to be heard before such a sanction may be imposed. Spencer, 751 So. 2d at 48. And this due process requirement applies to litigants involved in civil proceedings as well as criminal ones. See, e.g., Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135, 1136 n.2 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer as providing the required procedure before sanctioning a litigant in a civil case); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926, 926 n.3 (Fla. 2013) (same); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA…
Sonnett Humes v. Haresh Solanki, M.D., 305 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)

…(Fla. 2018) (“ See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (stating that a court must first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctioning a litigant and prohibiting litigant from future pro se filings).”); Lomax v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 2014); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2013); Stein v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 148 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 2014) (citing Spencer and directing a party to show cause why a bar order should not be issued). 2 A carefully-reaso…

Authorities Cited

State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2000)
Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
Rivera v. State, 79 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2012)
Harris v. State, 945 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 2006)
Annamarie Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2013)
McCray v. State, 247 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Lomax v. Officer Reynolds of the City of Miami Police Dep't & Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 119 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
Johnson v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon Tr. Co., 136 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 2014)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw