DAVID P. MORAN
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, and frivolous filings attacking his judgment and sentence may be barred from future pro se filings in the appellate court.
[1] A pro se litigant may be barred from filing further petitions in an appellate court when the litigant engages in a pattern of abusive, repetitive, and frivolous filings a…
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.”
Citation to Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), expressing the court's determination that further pro se filings would not be tolerated.
David P. Moran filed multiple pro se petitions attacking his judgment and sentence in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2016-CF-006177-A-OR. The…
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 Abuse Of Legal Process cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
DAVID P. MORAN,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D21-128
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 5, 2021
Petition Alleging Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
David P. Moran, Lake City, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment(s) and sentence(s) in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2016-CF-006177-A-OR, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner 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
2
conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2016-CF-006177-A-OR. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case 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. (2020); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, 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)