LUIS LA-CASSE
v.
MARK S. INCH, ETC.
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.
Luis La-Casse filed a frivolous habeas corpus petition in the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, continuing a pattern of meritless pro se filings despite prior warnings. The court ordered La-Casse to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se petitions and, finding no good cause shown, entered an order barring him from filing any additional pro se papers in the appellate court relating to his conviction in case F04-29879 without attorney review and signature.
La-Casse is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction and judgment in lower tribunal case F04-29879. The Clerk of the Court is directed to refuse to accept any such papers unless they have been reviewed and signed by a duly licensed Florida Bar attorney in good standing.
[1] A court may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se pleadings and appeals relating to a specified case upon finding that the litigant has engaged in a pattern of f…
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“La-Casse has engaged in the filing of meritless, frivolous, and successive claims, continuing to seek relief from this Court notwithstanding prior adverse determinations on the merits.”
Court's basis for finding good cause to impose filing restriction
La-Casse filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 10, 2021, which the court determined to be frivolous. The petitioner had previously been wa…
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 Successive Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed July 28, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1093 Lower Tribunal No. F04-29879 ________________
Luis La-Casse,
Petitioner,
vs.
Mark S. Inch, etc., Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus Luis La-Casse, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PER CURIAM.
On May 10, 2021, petitioner, Luis La-Casse, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. Upon review of the petition, we determined that La-Casse had again filed a frivolous petition in our court. On May 11, 2021, we ordered La-Casse to show cause why he shouldn’t be prohibited from filing further pro se petitions, motions and appeals in this court, citing to our warning in La-Casse v. Inch, 307 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), wherein we warned La-Casse that continued abuse of the judicial process would result in an order prohibiting further pro se filings in our court. As we noted in La-Casse, in 2018, petitioner was precluded from filing any further pro se pleadings relating to trial court case number F04-29879. He appealed that order and we affirmed.
Upon consideration of La-Casse’s response to our order to show cause and the successive, duplicative, pro se petitions and appeals brought by La-Casse, we conclude that good cause has not been shown. La-Casse has engaged in the filing of meritless, frivolous, and successive claims, continuing to seek relief from this Court notwithstanding prior adverse determinations on the merits.
In accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), and Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), La-Casse is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction, judgment, and sentence in lower tribunal cases F04-29879. We direct the Clerk of this Court to refuse to accept any such papers relating to the specified circuit court case number unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Est. OF George D. Ellingson v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Serv., 964 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1992)…ction Trust property under 26 U.S.C. § 2056(b)(7), declaring the property as “qualified terminable interest property” (QTIP). The Commissioner denied the QTIP deduction and the Tax Court upheld the denial. Estate of George Ellingson v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 760 (1991). The Estate timely appealed. If the QTIP deduction does not apply to the Marital Deduction Trust property, then the Estate will owe taxes on that property as of the date of George’s death. Otherwise, the taxes would be owed at the time Laved…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Moore v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Chestel Thorson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)