LINDBERG v. ASSAM (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.2021-12-03No. Case No. 5D21-2165

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed, and the appellant is permanently prohibited from filing pro se documents with this court.

The appellant filed repeated abusive, frivolous, or malicious motions in the court proceeding below, prompting the court to order her to explain why sanctions should not be imposed and why she should not be barred from future self-represented filings. After reviewing her response and finding it insufficient to justify avoiding sanctions, the court determined that the appellant was indeed abusing the judicial process.

To protect judicial efficiency, the court dismissed the appeal and imposed a blanket prohibition on the appellant's pro se filings. The court directed its clerk to reject all future filings submitted by the appellant unless she is represented by a licensed Florida attorney in good standing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether repeated pro se filings constitute abuse of the judicial process
Appropriateness of sanctions for abusive litigation tactics
Authority to bar litigants from future pro se filings

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed after the trial court entered an order, triggering this court's sua sponte show-cause proceeding regarding potential sanctions for abusive filings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Due to Appellants apparent abuse of the legal process by her abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings in the above-styled case, this Court issued an Order directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed and why she should not be prohibited from future pro se filings in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the Response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that she is abusing the judicial process and sanctions should be imposed.

Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, the above-styled case is dismissed, and Appellant is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings. Any future filings from Appellant will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”).

FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

PER CURIAM.

EDWARDS, HARRIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.