EDDIE JAMES MURPHY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A litigant who repeatedly and frivolously attacks his judgment and sentence may be prohibited from further pro se filings concerning that case, provided he is given notice and an opportunity to respond.
[1] A court may prohibit a litigant from bringing further attacks on their conviction and sentence after providing notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] Repeated filings attacking a judgment and sentence can constitute an abuse of the legal process.
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“first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”
Citing State v. Spencer for the procedural requirement that notice be given before sanctions
Eddie James Murphy filed repeated pro se motions attacking his judgment and sentence in a 1997 criminal case. The appellate court issued a show cause …
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 Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
June 20, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence, the Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that courts “first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”). Appellant’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.
Because Appellant’s continued and repeated attacks on his judgment and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this Court concerning Columbia County Circuit Court case number 1997-715-
2
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 with The Florida Bar. Appellant is warned that any filings that 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. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.
ROWE, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Eddie James Murphy, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.