VICTOR HICKS
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 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.
Victor Hicks, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a third procedural motion in this mandamus petition against the Department of Corrections and State of Florida. The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied his motion and cautioned him that further frivolous filings may result in sanctions including a bar on pro se filing and referral for disciplinary proceedings.
The Court denied Hicks' motion and cautioned that further pro se filings asserting claims from the identified case number may result in sanctions including a bar on pro se filing and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, including possible forfeiture of gain time.
[1] A pro se inmate's abusive, repetitive, or frivolous filings in appellate court may result in sanctions including a bar on future pro se filings in that court and referral…
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“Because it appears that Petitioner's filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, Petitioner is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this Court asserting claims stemming from the identified case number may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this Court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time.”
Establishes the Court's findings regarding the nature of Hicks' filings and the sanctions available for frivolous litigation
Victor Hicks, an inmate, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections and State of Florida, which was denied on Septemb…
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 Abusive Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s recently filed third procedural motion, and this Court’s denial of Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus stemming from Hernando County Circuit Court Case No. 2024-CA-000577, September 20, 2024, we deny Petitioner’s motion. Because it appears that Petitioner’s filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, Petitioner is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this Court asserting claims stemming from the identified case number may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this Court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2025); State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
MOTION DENIED; PETITIONER CAUTIONED. WALLIS, HARRIS and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.