DESPART
v.
KANNER
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.
Thomas Despart appeals from dismissal of his mandamus petition against Kristen Kanner, the Sexually Violent Predator Director of the Department of Children and Families. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding mandamus will not lie where the requested action is not clearly prescribed by law and requires exercise of discretion. The court also characterized this as Despart's fifth frivolous pro se filing in five years and warned of future sanctions.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that mandamus will not lie unless the action sought by the petitioner is clearly prescribed by law and can be performed without the exercise of discretion. The petitioner failed to satisfy this requirement.
[1] A court may limit or prohibit future pro se filings by a party after that party has filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings that diminish the court's ability to devote…
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 intelligenceThomas Despart, appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Kristen Kanner, the Sexually Violent Predator Director of the Departme…
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 Pro Se Litigant Access To Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
January 8, 2025 PER CURIAM.
Thomas Despart appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus against Kristen Kanner, the Sexually Violent Predator Director of the Department of Children and Families. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm. See Green v. Steven Garrett Frisco, P.A., 371 So. 3d 419, 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (explaining that mandamus will not lie unless the action sought by petitioner is clearly prescribed by law and can be performed without the exercise of discretion).
This is Despart’s fifth pro se filing in this court in five years and his sixth total. The court finds that this appeal is frivolous and warns Despart that any future filings that this court determines to be frivolous or malicious may result in a prohibition against any future pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 49 (Fla. 1999) (holding that a court may deny a petitioner’s pro se access to that court, after the petitioner fails to show cause pursuant to a show cause order, where the petitioner has filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings that diminish the court’s ability to devote its finite resources to legitimate claims).
AFFIRMED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Thomas Despart, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Andrew McGinley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1986)