Court Opinion

ID: 9904442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:36:39.444155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:06.224206
License: Public Domain

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

IRENA I. CHARLES

             Petitioner,

v.                                    Case No. 5D22-559
                                      LT Case No. 42-2012-CF-2167-A-Y

STATE OF FLORIDA,

             Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 24, 2022

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Irena I. Charles, Lowell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

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

sentences in Marion County Circuit Court Case Number 42-2012-CF-2167-

A-Y, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner 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 Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred

from further pro se filings.

      In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from

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

Circuit Court Case No. 42-2012-CF-2167-A-Y. 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. (2019); Simpkins v. State, 909 So.

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

      PETITIONER PROHIBITED FROM ANY FURTHER PRO SE FILINGS.

COHEN, WALLIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

                                      2