Court Opinion

ID: 9401871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 15:04:54.931882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.810364
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed June 14, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                        Nos. 3D22-624, 3D22-625
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-24767
                          ________________

                               José Yeyille,
                                  Appellant,

                                       vs.

                      Justin Cole Speigel, M.D.,
                                  Appellee.

    Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R.
Manno Schurr, Judge.

     José Yeyille, in proper person.

      Diaz Law Group, and Rolando A. Diaz; Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein,
P.A., Dinah S. Stein and Aneta McCleary, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
                      ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

     On May 3, 2023, upon motion of appellee Justin Cole Speigel, M.D.,

this Court issued an order to show cause directing José Yeyille to

demonstrate why he should not be barred from further pro se appeals for

filing a repetitious and frivolous motion for rehearing that impugns and

disparages the judges of this Court and a judge of the circuit court. Having

considered Mr. Yeyille’s response, we find that Mr. Yeyille has failed to show

good cause why he should not be barred from further pro se filings.

     Specifically, this Court finds Mr. Yeyille violated Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.330(a)(2)(A), by filing a repetitious and frivolous

motion for rehearing that merely reasserted previously disposed of

arguments. In his motion for rehearing Mr. Yeyille failed to show—or even

state with particularity—how this Court’s per curiam affirmance conflicted

with prior precedent or violated any of his constitutional rights. Florida law

has long held that a motion for rehearing is not “an open invitation for an

unhappy litigant or attorney to reargue the same points previously presented,

or to discuss the bottomless depth of the displeasure that one might feel

toward this judicial body as a result of having unsuccessfully sought

appellate relief.” Ayala v. Gonzalez, 984 So. 2d 523, 526 (Fla. 5th DCA

2008); see also Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze Off. Assocs., LLC, 248 So. 3d

                                      2
242, 244 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (denying a motion for rehearing where “the

motion expressed disagreement with the opinion, [but] failed to identify any

ambiguity necessitating clarification”).

      Under Florida law, “a citizen . . . abuses the right to pro se access by

filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the

courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate

claims.” State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). The Florida

Supreme Court has held that to ensure every citizen’s access to courts, a

court may prevent “abusive litigants from continuously filing frivolous

petitions, thus enabling the Court to devote its finite resources to those who

have not abused the system.” Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla.

1998).

      The Court further finds Mr. Yeyille violated Rule 4-8.2(a), Rules

Regulating the Florida Bar, by impugning the qualifications or integrity of the

judges of this Court and of the trial court. Rule 4-8.2(a) states, in relevant

part, that a “lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be

false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the

qualifications or integrity of a judge.”    When determining whether the rule

was violated, the question is not whether the statement is false, but whether

                                        3
Mr. Yeyille had an objectively reasonable factual basis for making the

statement. See The Florida Bar v. Ray, 797 So. 2d 556, 558–59 (Fla. 2001).

      Mr. Yeyille’s response to the show cause order proffers no objectively

reasonable factual basis for his statements. Rather than address the show

cause order, Mr. Yeyille utilizes his response to further impugn the Judges

of this Court, stating:

   1. “[A]ppellate judges in the state of Florida cannot complain about their

      vaunted integrity because, thanks to the political process which allows

      large law firms to choose, buy, and own them, they do not have any.”

   2. “Significantly, those law firms Greenberg Traurig P.A. and Akerman

      LLP own the judges of the Third District Court of Appeal.”

   3. “Hitherto I have most proficiently provided evidence, and proven, that

      the judges of the judiciary of the state of Florida, from the district courts

      of appeals, especially the Third District Court of Appeal, to the justices

      of the Florida Supreme Court, are racists and elitists who deliberately

      issue PER•CURIAM affirmances, in the vast majority of cases that they

      decide, to indigents, and indigent PRO•SE Black and Hispanic parties

      which, in turn, preclude appeals and petitions for writs to the Florida

      Supreme Court.”

                                        4
   4. “For now, and regarding this case only, I am confident to allege, based

      on public information, that the Third District Court of Appeal, is a

      criminal enterprise. Its judges are owned by Greenberg Traurig PA,

      and associate law firms including Akerman LLP, the Florida State

      Attorney’s Office, and the local and state’s governments.”

   5. “But none are more brazen than the current Chief Judge of the Third

      District Court of Appeal, Ivan Fernandez, whose mere presence is an

      affront to the judiciary and the people of Florida, and his actions an

      endless travesty of justice.”

      The fact that Mr. Yeyille is acting in a pro se capacity does not insulate

him from the consequences of his actions.         “On a proper showing, an

attorney may be barred from self-representation.” Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So.

2d 980, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see also Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166,

1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“This court has inherent power to prevent abuse

of court procedure by inter alia prohibiting [any] pro se parties from appearing

without the assistance of counsel.”). Even non-attorney pro se individuals

may be sanctioned for repeatedly filing motions that include personal attacks

on judges, that are “abusive,” “malicious,” “insulting,” and demeaning to the

judiciary. Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla. 2000). At no point in his

response does Mr. Yeyille acknowledge his responsibility as a member of

                                       5
the Florida Bar, make any statements of remorse, admit the wrongfulness of

his actions or assert any other mitigating circumstances for this Court to

consider and weigh in determining the appropriate sanctions to be imposed.

      This Court, therefore, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.410(a), imposes the following sanctions upon José Yeyille for violations

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 and Rule 4-8.2(a) of the Rules

Regulating the Florida Bar:

   1. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to reject any

      further pro se filings submitted by José Yeyille, unless such filing has

      been reviewed and signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good

      standing.

   2. We formally refer this matter to the Florida Bar for appropriate

      disciplinary proceedings against José Yeyille, Esquire.

It is so ordered.

                                      6