ENSLOW V. TAYLOR
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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 petitioner who engages in abusive, repetitive, and frivolous pro se filings may be prohibited from filing further pro se petitions concerning the same case.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further petitions concerning a specific case when the litigant engages in a pattern of abusive, repetitive, and frivolo…
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.”
Court's citation to Isley v. State in support of imposing filing restrictions.
Enslow V. Taylor filed a habeas corpus petition pro se attacking his judgment and sentence in a 1994 Orange County criminal case. The court issued an …
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
ENSLOW V. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D21-653
STATE OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents. ________________________________/ Opinion filed June 11, 2021 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Enslow V. Taylor, Orlando, pro se. No Appearance for Respondents.
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 and sentence in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 1994-CF-000291-B-O, 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). Petitioner having failed to
2 file a response and thus failing 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. 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 No. 1994-CF-000291-B-O. 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. (2019); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
PETITIONER PROHIBITED.
LAMBERT, EDWARDS and NARDELLA, 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)