CEDRIC JEFFERSON, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
JULIE JONES, ETC., 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.
Cedric Jefferson, a pro se litigant who has filed thirty-two unsuccessful appeals since 1998 challenging his conviction and sentence, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The court denies the petition and issues an order to show cause why Jefferson should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals without attorney review, finding abuse of the judicial process through successive meritless filings.
A pro se litigant's right to access the courts is not unrestricted and may be forfeited when the party abuses the judicial process through continued filing of successive or meritless collateral claims in criminal proceedings. Jefferson is ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se filings relating to his conviction unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida Bar attorney.
[1] A party's right of access to the courts is not unrestricted and may be forfeited if the party abuses the judicial process by filing successive or meritless collateral cla…
[2] A court may order a party to show cause why they should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions.
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“While pro se parties must be afforded a genuine and adequate opportunity to exercise their constitutional right of access to the courts, that right is not unrestricted.”
Establishes the foundational principle that pro se access rights, while protected, are not absolute and may be limited in cases of abuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJefferson has used multiple aliases (Selvin Mathew, David Pierre, Willie Toby, Corey Mathew, and Sylvain Plantin) and has filed thirty-two unsuccessfu…
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 Pro Se Litigant Access To Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
Cedric Jefferson, a/k/a Selvin Mathew, David Pierre, Willie Toby, Corey Mathew and Sylvain Plantin, petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus. We deny Petitioner’s writ without further discussion and issue' the following order to show cause.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On thirty-two prior occasions since 1998,1 Petitioner has unsuccessfully sought appellate review 'of the legality of his current sentence. Nevertheless, he returns to this court for the thirty-third time, once again seeking the same relief upon claims that have been previously raised, déter-mined on the merits, and affirmed on appeal.
While pro se parties must be afforded a genuine and adequate opportunity to exercise their constitutional right of access to the courts, that right is not unrestricted. *165The right to proceed pro se may be forfeited where it is determined, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the party has abused the judicial process by the continued filing of successive or meritless collateral claims in a criminal proceeding. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). As our sister court aptly stated, there comes a point when “enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Therefore, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction, judgment, and sentence in case numbers 93-1472-B, 94-39169, 94-39724, 94-40672, 94-40673, 95-8824, 95-8825, 95-8827, 95-13969, 95-13970, 95-14776, 95-15140, 95-16068, 95-16070. Absent a showing of good cause, we intend to direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any further filings relating to case numbers previously enumerated, unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
Petition denied; show cause order issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)