Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
Nathaniel Brown, Raiford, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent.
January 23, 2026
PER CURIAM.
This court previously entered an order denying whatamounted to Nathaniel Brown’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.Due to Brown’s apparent abuse of the legal process by hisrepetitive and frivolous pro se filings attacking his conviction andsentence entered in 2005 in Duval County Circuit Court case
Original opinion page 2
2number 16-2005-CF-001831-A,1 we issued an order datedDecember 11, 2025, directing Brown to show cause why he shouldnot be barred from filing in this court any appeal, petition,pleading, or motion pertaining to his conviction and sentencerendered in Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-2005-CF-001831-A unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed topractice law in the State of Florida.Having carefully considered Brown’s response and findingthat it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed,we conclude that Brown is abusing the judicial process and shouldbe barred from further pro se filings in this case. Therefore, inorder to conserve judicial resources, Nathaniel Brown is prohibitedfrom filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerningDuval County Circuit Court Case No. 16-2005-CF-001831-A. TheClerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro sefilings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarilyreject any future filings regarding the referenced case unless filedby a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v.State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough isenough.”).PETITIONER, NATHANIEL BROWN, PROHIBITEDFROM FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS.WALLIS, LAMBERT, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur._____________________________Not final until disposition of any timely andauthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or9.331._____________________________1 See Brown v. Bondi, 240 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018);Brown v. State, 35 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion