Gourley v. State

820 So. 2d 993, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8395, 2002 WL 1301509
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 14, 2002·No. No. 5D02-1208·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

COBB, J.

We have received Gourley’s response to our show cause order issued pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond). Finding no merit to the response, and because Gourley has repeatedly abused the judicial system in this regard, we think he qualifies for this court’s “Enough is enough” rule. See, e.g., Werts v. State, 722 So.2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 705 So.2d 133, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we prohibit Richard E. Gourley from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his 1972 conviction and sentence to life imprisonment for first degree murder, which was affirmed in Gourley v. State, 285 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Any further pleadings filed in this court relating to his judgment and sentence in that case must be reviewed and signed by an attorney, licensed to practice law in this [994]*994state. The clerk of the court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se filings or pleadings from Gourley related to lower court case number 71-3869-CFA.1

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur. ■

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gourley v. State, 820 So. 2d 993, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8395, 2002 WL 1301509 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

820 So. 2d 993 (Gourley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Medberry v. State
824 So. 2d 1058 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)