Court Opinion

ID: 9904400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:35:19.383194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:00.684621
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                       FIFTH DISTRICT

JOHN HENRY MASSIE,

            Appellant,

 v.                                            Case No. 5D22-542
                                               LT Case No. 1986-CF-003285-B-O

STATE OF FLORIDA,

            Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 8, 2022

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.

John Henry Massie, Doral, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Carmen F.
Corrente, Assistant Attorney
General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

      Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive,

repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and

sentence in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 1986-CF-003285-B-
O, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he

should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. 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 Appellant is abusing the judicial process and should be barred

from further pro se filings.

        In order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from

filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Orange County

Circuit Court Case Number 1986-CF-003285-B-O. The Clerk of this Court

is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced

case.     The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the

referenced case 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.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this

opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary

proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Simpkins v. State, 909 So.

2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

        SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

COHEN, EDWARDS and SASSO, JJ., concur.

                                       2