LEE
v.
STATE
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.
James Arthur Lee appealed a trial court order denying his petition for writ of mandamus, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal because Lee was previously prohibited from filing pro se appeals related to his conviction and sentence. The court sanctioned Lee for violating the prior prohibition order and imposed stricter restrictions on his future filings.
The court sanctioned James Arthur Lee for violating its prior prohibition order by continuing to file pro se pleadings related to his conviction and sentence. The court prohibited Lee from filing any pro se pleading or paper related to his conviction case unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida Bar attorney in good standing, and directed the Clerk to forward the order to the Department of Corrections for potential disciplinary action including forfeiture of gain time.
[1] A court may sanction a litigant for violating an order prohibiting pro se filings by requiring all future filings on the related matter to be reviewed and signed by licen…
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 intelligenceLee filed a pro se notice of appeal from a trial court order denying his petition for writ of mandamus related to his incarceration status. A prior co…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Arthur Lee filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. On March 6, 2019, we dismissed this appeal because, by previous order entered by this Court in case number 3D03-1393, James Arthur Lee was prohibited from filing any pro se appeals or petitions related to his conviction and sentence (or related to his prisoner status resulting from his conviction and sentence) in lower tribunal case number 96-6742.1 We further directed Lee to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating this Court’s order in 3D03-1393 by continuing to file pro se pleadings with this Court related to lower tribunal case number 96-6742.
Lee has filed a document which we treat as his response to the show cause order. Following our review, we conclude that James Arthur Lee has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating this Court’s order in 3D03-1393, by continuing to file pro se pleadings with this Court related to lower tribunal case number 96-6742. We further note that appellant previously attempted to file pro se pleadings in 3D17-1231, resulting in a similar dismissal order. 1 Case number 96-6742 is Lee’s conviction and sentence and case number 18-35897 is Lee’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus, filed with the circuit court (and assigned a separate case number) seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directed to the Florida Department of Corrections, arising out of and related to Lee’s incarcerative status following his conviction and sentence in 96-6742.
We prohibit James Arthur Lee from filing any pro se pleading or paper with this Court related to lower tribunal case number 96-6742, or related to his prisoner status resulting from his conviction and sentence in case number 96-6742. We hereby direct the Clerk of this Court to refuse to accept any such pleading or paper relating to lower tribunal case number 96-6742 unless it has been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
Additionally, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a copy of this order to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018).