Case Name: Carstarvos WOODS Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2011-01-28
Citations: 53 So. 3d 380
Docket Number: No. 5D10-3672
Parties: Carstarvos WOODS Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GRIFFIN, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 53
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
Carstarvos WOODS Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D10-3672.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 28, 2011.
Carstarvos Woods, Ft. Lauderdale, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.

Opinion:
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
PER CURIAM.
This Court issued a Spencer show cause order directing the Appellant, Carstarvos Woods, to demonstrate why he should not be barred from filing further pro se challenges to his convictions and sentences in this case. We did so after affirming the denial of Woods' successive pro se motion for postconviction relief — his sixth such motion since he was convicted eighteen years ago and his second since he was barred from further pro se filings by the trial court. We find Woods' response to our show cause order to be unpersuasive and conclude he is abusing the judicial process.
Therefore, we now prohibit Woods from filing with this Court any more pro se pleadings concerning Hernando County, Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, case numbers 91-001-CF and 91-8B0-CF. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Woods concerning these cases. Any additional pleadings or motions in this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. See Johnson v. State, 652 So.2d 980, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (prohibiting petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings after thirteen challenges to conviction and sentence); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); Simpkins v. State, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
GRIFFIN, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).