MICHAEL ANTHONY LORUSSO
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 has initiated over thirty repetitive and meritless proceedings in the appellate court may be restricted from filing future pleadings related to the same underlying case without representation by a member of The Florida Bar.
[1] An appellate court may restrict a pro se litigant from filing future pleadings related to the same underlying case without representation by a member of The Florida Bar w…
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“Appellant's response is unavailing as it fails to justify his meritless and repetitive filings.”
Court's explanation for imposing the filing restriction
Michael Anthony LoRusso filed an untimely appeal and had previously initiated over thirty proceedings in the District Court of Appeal related to his j…
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 Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On July 19, 2022, this court dismissed this appeal as untimely filed and issued an order detailing Appellant's initiation of over thirty proceedings in this court related to his judgment and sentence in Pinellas County Circuit Court case 20-04126-CF. The order directed Appellant to show cause why this court should not direct the clerk to reject pleadings in this court related to Pinellas County Circuit Court case 20-04126-CF unless the filing is related to a pending proceeding or submitted by a licensed Florida attorney.
See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48–49 (Fla. 1999).
Appellant's response is unavailing as it fails to justify his meritless and repetitive filings. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to place in an inactive file any original proceedings or notices of appeal filed by Appellant related to the lower tribunal case number listed in this order unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See id.
NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Muskogee v. Heilman, 62 F.2d 157 (10th Cir. 1932)…t. 94, 37 L. Ed. 1063; Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U. S. 505, 26 L. Ed. 866; Smith v. Sac County, 11 Wall. 139, 147, 20 L. Ed. 102. The authorities, however,- are not in ae- ' cord as to what is required to meet that burden. Howard Nat. Bank v. Wilson, 96 Vt. 438, 120 A. 889, 893, 894; Glendo State Bank v. Abbott, 30 Wyo. 98, 216 P. 700, 34 A. L. R. 294; Jones v. Gordon, [1877] 2 App. Cas. 616. The rule under the common law in the Federal courts and a majority of the state jurisdictions is that it is suffici…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)