Hall v. Norris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hall v. Norris

142 So. 3d 882, 2014 WL 1921757, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-3634

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 So. 3d 882 (Hall v. Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Norris, 142 So. 3d 882, 2014 WL 1921757, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7159 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ON IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

THOMAS, J.

The records of this court reflect Appellant has filed a total of thirty-nine appeals in this court, three in another court of appeal, and numerous cases in federal court, virtually all of which have been dismissed or otherwise denied for one reason or another, including, but not limited to, frivolousness. Furthermore, this court has already issued an opinion forbidding Appellant from filing pro se pleadings with this court for abusing the judicial process. See Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). With the litigation below and this appeal, Appellant continues this pattern of vexatious litigiousness. Consequently, we issued an order for Appellant to show cause as to why he should not be prohibited from appearing as a litigant in this court in any matter unless represented by counsel.

After considering Appellant’s response to our order to show cause, we prohibit Appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings in this court. Any pleadings or papers filed in this court regarding Appellant must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in this state. Accordingly, the clerk is directed not to accept any further pro se pleadings or filings from Appellant in any matter. See [883]*883Perry v. Mascara, 959 So.2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

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

ON IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

THOMAS, J.

The records of this court reflect Appellant has filed a total of thirty-nine appeals in this court, three in another court of appeal, and numerous cases in federal court, virtually all of which have been dismissed or otherwise denied for one reason or another, including, but not limited to, frivolousness. Furthermore, this court has already issued an opinion forbidding Appellant from filing pro se pleadings with this court for abusing the judicial process. See Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). With the litigation below and this appeal, Appellant continues this pattern of vexatious litigiousness. Consequently, we issued an order for Appellant to show cause as to why he should not be prohibited from appearing as a litigant in this court in any matter unless represented by counsel.

After considering Appellant’s response to our order to show cause, we prohibit Appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings in this court. Any pleadings or papers filed in this court regarding Appellant must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in this state. Accordingly, the clerk is directed not to accept any further pro se pleadings or filings from Appellant in any matter. See [883]*883Perry v. Mascara, 959 So.2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 3d 882, 2014 WL 1921757, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-norris-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack