TODD E. WATSON
v.
THE 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal prohibited Todd E. Watson from filing any further pro se pleadings relating to his underlying criminal case (F17-18789) after determining he had abused the judicial process through repeated frivolous filings containing scandalous and unsupported allegations. Watson was given an opportunity to show cause why such a prohibition should not be imposed but provided no response.
The court concluded that no good cause exists for Watson to continue filing pro se pleadings and prohibited him from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to circuit court case number F17-18789 unless reviewed and signed by a duly licensed Florida Bar attorney in good standing. Unauthorized future pro se filings may subject Watson to sanctions including written findings forwarded to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action.
[1] A pro se litigant's right to access the courts is not absolute and may be forfeited upon a determination of abuse of the judicial process.
[2] Courts may restrict a pro se litigant's ability to file further pleadings when the litigant has engaged in the filing of meritless, time-barred, or successive claims.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This court therefore prohibits Watson from filing any additional pro se pleadings relating to circuit court case number F17-18789.”
The core holding establishing the prohibition on Watson's future pro se filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTodd E. Watson filed multiple pro se appeals and petitions in the Third District Court of Appeal relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences…
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 Right To Proceed Pro Se cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 2, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1170 Lower Tribunal No. F17-18789
________________
Todd E. Watson,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition. Todd E. Watson, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent. Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On August 14, 2024, this court denied Todd E. Watson’s petition for writ of prohibition. The court also ordered Watson to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se filings in this court relating to lower tribunal case number F17-18789.
Watson provided no response to the order to show cause. After carefully considering the record, including the myriad frivolous pro se appeals and petitions brought by Watson, which include repeated scandalous, defamatory, and unsupported allegations, we conclude that no good cause exists. This court therefore prohibits Watson from filing any additional pro se pleadings relating to circuit court case number F17-18789. See Roberts v. State, 224 So. 3d 289, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (barring pro se party from further filings in the appellate court related to the underlying criminal matter); see also State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (holding that upon a demonstration of abuse, a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant reasonable notice and an opportunity to respond); Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (explaining that the right to proceed pro se will be forfeited where a party abuses the judicial process by the continued filing of “successive motions which have been heard, considered, rejected, and then raised again”).
Accordingly, Watson is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in lower tribunal case number F17-18789. See Cruz v. State, 981 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to this 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); Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Additionally, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Watson may subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); Whipple, 112 So. 3d at 541 (citing Minor v. State, 963 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Minor v. State, 963 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Solomon Roberts v. State, 224 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Cruz v. State, 981 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)