ANTHONY M. JACKSON
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 a pattern of abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking his judgments and sentences may be barred from future pro se filings to conserve judicial resources.
[1] A pro se litigant may be barred from filing further petitions in a particular case when the litigant engages in a pattern of abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous…
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 Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) in support of the prohibition on future pro se filings.
Anthony M. Jackson, a pro se litigant, filed multiple petitions attacking his judgments and sentences in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2007-…
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 Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
ANTHONY M. JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D20-2565
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 26, 2021
Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob Leblanc, Judge.
Anthony M. Jackson, Raiford, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 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 judgments and sentences in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2007-CF-12700-A- O, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he
2 should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered his 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. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, the Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the above 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.
EDWARDS, HARRIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)