SERGIO WINSTON ARCHER HENDERSON
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 filer engaging in abusive, repetitive, frivolous filings may be prohibited from future pro se filings in a case and required to retain counsel for any future filings.
[1] A pro se litigant engaged in a pattern of abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings attacking the same judgment or sentence may be prohibited from further pro…
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.”
The court cited this phrase from Isley v. State in imposing the filing restriction.
Sergio Winston Archer Henderson, an inmate at Raiford, filed multiple pro se filings attacking his 2009 conviction in Seminole County Circuit Court th…
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.
Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgments and sentences in Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 2009-CF-3535-A, 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). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.
Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, the Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk 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. (2022); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)