WINDSOR v. LONGEST LLC (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.2021-07-30No. Case No. 5D21-942

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for certiorari is dismissed as untimely regarding the February and early March orders, dismissed regarding the interlocutory orders of mid-to-late March and early April, and denied on the merits regarding the April 6 order restricting pro se filings.

The petitioner sought certiorari review of multiple trial court orders. The court dismissed the petition as untimely with respect to orders from late February and early March 2021, since certiorari petitions must be filed within thirty days of the order's issuance. The court also dismissed the petition regarding three mid-to-late March and early April orders because they were interlocutory in nature and could be properly reviewed on appeal of a final judgment.

Regarding the trial court's April 6, 2021 order prohibiting the petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings without the signature of a licensed Florida attorney, the court denied the petition on the merits. The trial court had properly weighed the petitioner's right to access the courts against the court system's need to manage its docket efficiently when faced with repetitive and frivolous filings. The petitioner received adequate notice and a hearing on the matter before the order was imposed. The court emphasized that while court access is constitutionally protected, a litigant who repeatedly files baseless and harassing pleadings may forfeit that right when given fair process.

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

Key issues

Timeliness of certiorari petitions under the thirty-day filing deadline
Reviewability of interlocutory orders versus final orders
Trial court authority to restrict pro se filings by litigants filing repetitive and meritless pleadings
Balance between constitutional access to courts and court management

Procedural posture

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging multiple orders issued by the trial court between late February and early April 2021.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

As to the orders rendered February 23, 2021, March 2, 2021, and March 3, 2021, Petitioners petition for certiorari is dismissed as untimely. Petitions for writ of certiorari, like notices of appeal, must be filed within thirty days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. See Arce v. Maher Guiley & Maher, P.A., 936 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

As to the orders rendered March 24, 2021, March 25, 2021, and April 5, 2021, the petition is dismissed because those are interlocutory orders that can be properly addressed and a remedy provided, if appropriate, on plenary appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359, 363–64 (Fla. 2012).

As to the trial courts April 6, 2021 order barring Petitioner from filing any further pro se pleadings in that court, we deny the petition on the merits. We find that the trial court properly balanced Petitioners right of access to the courts against the need to prevent a torrent of repetitive, meritless, and abusive pleadings from diverting the courts limited resources away from the timely adjudication of other cases. Petitioner was given proper notice and the opportunity to respond by showing cause as to why such a ban should not have been imposed before the trial court entered its order. The courts order forbidding future docketing of Petitioners pro se filings unless signed and filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar is appropriate under the circumstances and is in no way a departure from the essential requirements of law.

Although access to the courts is constitutionally guaranteed, a citizen who files repetitive, meritless, and abusive pleadings can forfeit that right if the court gives that litigant notice and an opportunity to respond. See Bolton v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, 127 So. 3d 746, 747–78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999)). We hereby caution Petitioner that his numerous repetitive, meritless, and abusive filings, including those inappropriately termed to involve emergencies, may ultimately lead to a similar bar in this Court. We will continue to allow the clerk to accept and file his pro se papers, and this Court will give each due consideration. However, Petitioner should keep this warning in mind as he proceeds.

DISMISSED, in part; DENIED, in part; and pro se CAUTIONED.

EDWARDS, J.

LAMBERT, C.J., and SASSO, J., concur.