DONALD KEITH ROLLING
v.
THE 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 trial court may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings when it provides adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing such sanctions.
[1] A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing sanctions that prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings, and actual notice…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To achieve the best balance of a litigant's right of access to courts and the need of the courts to prevent repetitious and frivolous pleadings, it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”
State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla. 1999)
Donald Keith Rolling appealed a circuit court order from Miami-Dade County that prohibited him from filing further pro se pleadings. The trial court h…
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 Frivolous Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1219 Lower Tribunal No. F87-40231A ________________
Donald Keith Rolling, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.
Donald Keith Rolling, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daniel Colmenares, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla. 1999) (“To achieve the best balance of a litigant's right of access to courts and the need of the courts to prevent repetitious and frivolous pleadings, it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence.”); Spencer v. Kelner, 357 So. 3d 166, 168-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“Although the amount of required notice does not turn on ‘hard and fast rules . . . the party served with notice must have actual notice and time to prepare.’” (quoting Ferris v. Winn, 242 So. 3d 509, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018))); Filmore v. State, 935 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming order prohibiting further pro se filings, finding “the trial court afforded appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions” where the state filed its motion to enjoin appellant from further pro se filings (placing him on notice of the potential sanction) and appellant had an adequate opportunity to respond to the motion); Massey v. State, 589 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (“While lack of any notice, written or otherwise, is a due process violation, lack of written notice, when actual notice is given, is not.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Massey v. State, 589 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Ferris v. Winn, 242 So. 3d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Carson Filmore v. State, 935 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)