DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS
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 abusing the judicial process through repetitive, frivolous filings may be barred from further pro se filings in a particular case, and future filings may be rejected by the clerk unless filed by a member of The Florida Bar.
[1] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing additional pro se pleadings in a particular case when the litigant demonstrates a pattern of abusive, repetitive, malic…
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.”
Court quoting Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) when imposing sanctions against the petitioner.
Donald Otis Williams, a prisoner at Raiford, filed numerous pro se motions attacking his judgment and sentence in Lake County Circuit Court Case No. 2…
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 Legal Process 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 judgment and sentence in Lake County Circuit Court Case No. 2011-CF-105, 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 the response 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. COHEN, EISNAUGLE and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)