CHARLES EDWARD STALLWORTH,
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 writ of mandamus is not available to require a trial court to adjudicate a motion filed in violation of an order prohibiting pro se pleadings.
[1] Upon a demonstration of abuse of the judicial process through repeated frivolous filings, a court may restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides the pro se lit…
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“In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.”
Statement of the legal standard for mandamus relief, citing Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000).
Stallworth, a pro se litigant, filed a petition for leave to file a motion based on newly discovered evidence in his criminal case. The trial court ha…
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 Court Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 23, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D19-1834 Lower Tribunal No. 01-12950A
Charles Edward Stallworth, Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida, Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Mandamus.
Charles Edward Stallworth, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Charles Edward Stallworth seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court compelling the trial court to rule on Stallworth's pro se February 19, 2019 filing titled "Petition for Leave Pursuant to Florida Statute 68.093(4) to File a Timely 3.850(b)(1) Motion Premised upon Newly Discovered Evidence." The trial court has not addressed Stallworth's filing because, on September 6, 2018, the lower court issued an order prohibiting Stallworth from “filing any further pleadings challenging his conviction and sentence in [lower tribunal number F01-12950A], unless such pleading is signed by a licensed attorney."
"In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.” Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000). When, as here, the trial court has entered an order prohibiting the filing of pro se pleadings, the remedy of mandamus is not available to require a trial court to adjudicate a motion filed in violation of the order. Id. We, therefore, deny the instant petition.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The instant petition marks Stallworth's eleventh filing¹ with this Court associated with his conviction and sentence in lower tribunal case number F01-
12950A. Stallworth is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or proceedings related to his criminal conviction and sentence in lower tribunal case number F01-12950A. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 49 (Fla. 1999) (holding that upon a demonstration of abuse, a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant reasonable notice and an opportunity to respond).
If Stallworth does not demonstrate good cause, any further unauthorized filings by Stallworth will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019).
Petititon denied. Order to show cause issued.
2016) (table); Stallworth v. State, 177 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (table); Stallworth v. State, 91 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (table); Stallworth v. State, 60 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (table); Stallworth v. State, 38 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); Stallworth v. State, 995 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (table); Stallworth v. State, 970 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table); Stallworth v. State, 963 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table)