MARZUQ AL-HAKIM, APPELLANT,
v.
BIG LOTS STORES, INC.; JOSHUA SALTER; AND DEPUTY MIKE DAVIDSON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, APPELLEES
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.
Al-Hakim appealed two trial court orders: one prohibiting pro se filings as a sanction for abuse of process, and another dismissing his amended complaint without prejudice after he failed to retain counsel. The court affirmed the sanction order and dismissed the appeal of the dismissal order as premature because it was not a final, appealable order.
The sanction order prohibiting pro se filings is affirmed as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The dismissal order without prejudice is not a final, appealable order because it does not require the filing of a new action and the applicable statutes of limitation have not expired, so the appeal of that order is dismissed as premature.
[1] An order prohibiting a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings is affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence of abuse of the judicial process.
[2] An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is generally not a final, appealable order.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“An order that dismisses an action 'without prejudice' may or may not be a final order depending on whether it unequivocally disposes of the case.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAl-Hakim filed a civil action against Big Lots Stores, Inc., Joshua Salter, and Deputy Mike Davidson. The trial court imposed sanctions prohibiting Al…
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 Final Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Marzuq Al-Hakim seeks review of two orders entered by the trial court in his civil action against Big Lots Stores, Inc., Joshua Salter, and Deputy Mike Davidson. The first order, rendered June 6, 2013, prohibited Al-Hakim from filing any further pro se pleadings as a sanction for his abuse of the judicial process. That order is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, and we therefore affirm it without further comment. The second order, rendered October 30, 2013, dismissed Al-Hakim’s amended complaint without prejudice after he failed to retain counsel to file pleadings on his behalf. Because this order is a nonfinal, nonappealable order, we dismiss this appeal to the extent that it seeks review of the October 30 order.
“An order that dismisses an action ‘without prejudice’ may or may not be a final order depending on whether it unequivocally disposes of the case.” Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Generally, when an order dismisses a complaint “without prejudice,” that language signifies that the order is not a final order. See Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 23.2 (2013 ed.). An exception to this general rule arises when a dismissal is without prejudice but when it is clear from the context that the plaintiffs right to pursue the case requires the filing of a completely new ease. Id.; see also Gerber v. Vincent’s Men’s Hairstyling, Inc., 57 So.3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (concluding that order dismissing complaint without prejudice was a final order because it required the plaintiff to file a new action *570after complying with the presuit requirements of the Federal Civil Rights Act); Hollingsworth v. Brown, 788 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (finding that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice to the plaintiff refiling it after he exhausted his administrative remedies was final because it contemplated an end to the case at hand and required the filing of a new case at some point in the future). Hence, if the filing of a new case is not required, the general rule applies and the order is not final.
Here, while the October 30 order does not specifically provide Al-Hakim with leave to amend, it is clear from the court’s earlier orders that if Al-Hakim retains counsel to represent him, counsel may file pleadings in this same action. Nothing in the October 30 order requires counsel to file a new action. Moreover, the statutes of limitation applicable to Al-Hakim’s claims have not yet expired so as to make the effect of the dismissal final. See § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (2011) (providing a four-year statute of limitations for causes of action for negligence [ (3)(a) ], malicious prosecution [ (3)(o) ], and civil conspiracy [ (3)(o) ]). Therefore, the October 30 order dismissing Al-Hakim’s amended complaint without prejudice is not a final, ap-pealable order, and we must dismiss the appeal of it as premature.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 206 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…s appeal followed. ANALYSIS I. Jurisdiction We begin by addressing jurisdiction. “Generally, when an order dismisses a complaint ‘without prejudice,’ that language signifies that the order is not a final order.” Al-Hakim v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 161 So. 3d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). But this general rule is not without exception. If a dismissal is “without prejudice” but it is clear from the context of the record that the plaintiffs right to pursue the case requires the filing of a new case, the order i…
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Wild, 164 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…udice,” it is clear from this record that the dismissal was ordered as a sanction and that FNMA’S right to pursue its claims required the filing of a new case. Under those circumstances, the orders were appealable. Al-Hakim v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 161 So. 3d 568, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2262 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 29, 2014). The orders do not satisfy the requirements for such a sanction as detailed in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993). The compliance evidenced in the record, the chronology of the- case…
-
Markieph Palmer v. McIntosh Kemarley Rashawn (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…cial Circuit “without first obtaining leave of the administrative judge in accordance with Section 68.093(4)”). Additionally, a dismissal without prejudice generally constitutes a nonappealable, nonfinal order. See Al-Hakim v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 161 So. 3d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Hollingsworth v. Brown, 788 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Jaimi Gerber v. Vincent's Men's Hairstyling, Inc., 57 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)