MARTIN MORALES
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 pro se litigant who engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking his judgment and sentence may be prohibited from filing further pro se pleadings in that case.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further pleadings in a particular case when the litigant engages in abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filing…
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“Enough is enough.”
The court cited this language from Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) in support of the prohibition on future pro se filings.
Martin Morales, a pro se litigant, filed multiple abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pleadings attacking his judgment and sentence in Osceol…
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 Sanctions For Abusive Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
MARTIN MORALES,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-1111
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 23, 2019
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Wayne C. Wooten, Judge.
Martin Morales, Avon Park, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Osceola County Circuit Court Case Number 2006-CF-1537, this 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). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.
2 Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED. BERGER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
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)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)