MICHAEL STOLL
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.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied on the merits in part and dismissed in part a pro se petition to invoke the court's all writs jurisdiction in a 1994 criminal case. The court warned the petitioner against filing further frivolous or repetitive motions, cautioning that future filings may result in sanctions including a bar on pro se filings and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings.
The court found that Petitioner's repeated motions and filings appear to be abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, and warned that further pro se filings asserting claims stemming from the identified case may result in sanctions including a bar on pro se filings and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings.
[1] A court may impose sanctions, including a bar on pro se filings and referral for prison disciplinary proceedings with possible forfeiture of gain time, when an inmate's r…
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 repeated motions and other 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 filings in this Court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time.”
The court's basis for warning the petitioner and the potential consequences of further frivolous filings.
Michael Stoll, an inmate at Raiford, filed a petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction stemming from a 1994 Seminole County criminal case (Case No. 19…
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
March 14, 2025 PER CURIAM.
This Court previously denied on the merits in part and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the remainder, Petitioner’s petition to invoke all writs stemming from Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 1994-CF-3303-B. Because it appears that Petitioner’s repeated motions and other 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 filings in this Court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2024); State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
PETITIONER WARNED. MAKAR, EISNAUGLE, and SOUD, JJ., concur.