Petition for Writ of Mandamus.Pamela Stinnette Vergara, Judge.
Victor Hicks, Malone, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondents.
September 26, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s recently filed fourthprocedural motion, and the apparent abuse of the legal process byhis abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filingsattacking his judgment and sentence in Hernando County CircuitCourt Case No. 2024-CA-000577, we deny Petitioner’s motion.Petitioner was previously cautioned that any further pro se filingsin this Court asserting claims stemming from the identified case
Original opinion page 2
2number may result in sanctions. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.(2025); State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). Havingcarefully considered Petitioner’s continued abuse of the legalprocess in his repetitive filings, we conclude that he is abusing thejudicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioneris prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filingsconcerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court isdirected not to accept any further pro se filings concerning thereferenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced casewill be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a memberin good standing of The Florida Bar. SeeIsley v. State, 652 So. 2d409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk isfurther directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to theappropriateinstitutionforconsiderationofdisciplinaryproceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); Simpkins v. State,909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).MOTION DENIED; PETITIONER BARRED from further pro sefilings.WALLIS, HARRIS, and KILBANE, JJ., concur._____________________________Not final until disposition of any timely andauthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or9.331._____________________________
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion