ROBINSON v. SECTION 23 PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION INC 15 2008 (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.2021-10-15No. No. 2D21-2367

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court directed the clerk to place any future original proceedings or notices of appeal filed by the petitioner related to the specified lower court cases into inactive status unless the filing is signed by a licensed Florida attorney.

A petitioner filed over thirty-five appeals and original proceedings in the appellate court concerning various lower court cases, flooding the docket with repetitive and legally unfounded claims. The court previously denied his petition for a writ of prohibition and ordered him to show cause why his future filings should not be restricted. When the petitioner's response merely restated the same unsuccessful arguments without providing meaningful justification, the court determined that continued filings would continue to waste judicial resources.

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

Key issues

Abuse of appellate process through serial meritless filings
Court's authority to restrict pro se filings by vexatious litigants
Whether petitioner demonstrated cause to avoid filing restrictions

Procedural posture

The court previously denied the petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition and issued a show cause order; the petitioner's response to that order was found inadequate.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER RESTRICTING PETITIONER FROM FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS

On September 1, 2021, this court denied Albert M. Robinsons petition for writ of prohibition and issued an order detailing Robinsons initiation of over thirty-five appeals or original proceedings in this court related to Charlotte County Court case number 2014-CC-601; Charlotte County Circuit Court Case numbers 2011-CA-3581, 2014-CA-2242, 2014-CA-2270, 2015-CA-3, and 2019-AP-56; and Sarasota County Circuit Court case numbers 2014-CA-2345, 2014-CA-3977, 2016-CA-556, and 2017-CA-1340. We noted that Robinsons frequent meritless filings burdened the limited resources of this court and interfered with the resolution of genuine disputes. The order directed Robinson to show cause why this court should not direct the clerk to reject pleadings in this court related to these lower tribunal case numbers unless the filing is related to a pending proceeding or submitted by a licensed Florida attorney. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48–49 (Fla. 1999).

Robinsons response failed to satisfy this courts order to show cause. Rather, Robinsons response regurgitates the same meritless arguments he has raised in the prior pleadings before this court.

Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to place in an inactive file any original proceedings or notices of appeal filed by Robinson related to the lower tribunal case numbers listed in this order unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See id.; Cafaro v. Estate of Wyllins, 164 So. 3d 146, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

PER CURIAM.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and SMITH JJ., Concur.