(2) Mr. Cothron is barred from further pro se filings in this Court involving his 1990 case because his pleadings have be come an abuse of process. See Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2006) (acknowledging limitations on collateral review to be strictly enforced); Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough"). (3) The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Gregory A. Cothron, and any more pleadings or filings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.
Third, we hold that Longley is barred from further pro se filings in this Court involving his 1991 case because his pleadings have become an abuse of process. See Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (2006) (acknowledging limitations on collateral review to be strictly enforced); Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough"). We affirm, and in order to conserve judicial resources we prohibit Longley from filing with this Court any farther pro se pleadings concerning Ninth Judicial Circuit Court case number 1991-CF-11788.
We now hold that Reyes is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis that his present petition is frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that defendant's pro se filings had become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money); Rooney v. State, 699 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dennis v. State, 685 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Reyes from filing with this Court any further pro se filings of any kind concerning Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 94-573-CF.
After receiving Harris' response, we affirm the trial court and hold that Harris is barred from further pro se filings in this court. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); Carter v. State, 931 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("Appellant's repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court's ability to consider legitimate claims."); see also Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding defendant's pro se filings were frivolous, and abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money); Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants). Accordingly, to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Harris from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court Case Number 05-1990-CF-18293-A. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Eddie James Harris, and any more pleadings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Carter v. State, 931 So.2d 1045, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("Appellant's repeated filing of frivolous appeals is diminishing this court's ability to consider legitimate claims."); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding defendant's pro se filings were frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money); Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing that frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants). Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Daniels from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court case number 97-3833-CFB.
Accordingly, we hold that Edwards is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis that his present petition raises a successive claim previously decided on the merits, constituting an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that defendant's pro se filings had become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money); Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants). Thus, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Edwards from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning Sumter County, Fifth Judicial Circuit Court case number 1985-376-CF.
We deny his mandamus petition on the merits and hold that he is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis that his present petition raises a successive claim previously decided on the merits and, therefore, constitutes an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that defendant's pro se filings had become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money); Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants). Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit McKeehan from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court case number 01-183.
We hold that Snead is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis that his present motion constitutes an abuse of process. It is exceedingly untimely and raises an issue he could have raised many years before. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that defendant's pro se filings had become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money). Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Snead from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court case number 48-1987-CF-1580.
We now deny Williams' mandamus petition on the merits and hold that he is barred from further pro se filings in this court on the basis that his present petition is frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants); Britt v. State, 931 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that defendant's pro se filings had become frivolous, an abuse of process, and a waste of the taxpayers' money). Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Williams from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Fifth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 2000-2130-CF. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Petitioner. Any more pleadings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
We conclude that the present motion is frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."); see also Glasco v. State, 914 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (recognizing frivolous collateral appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious appeals by inviting sweeping rulings and by engendering judicial impatience with all defendants); Henderson v. State, 903 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting "this court is not going to listen to this argument any longer," in reference to same claim argued by defendant over more than two decades); Freeman v. State, 885 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (recognizing that it is necessary to limit successive claims to give due weight to the finality and presumption of legality of a final judgment and to restore the public's confidence in our criminal system of justice). Accordingly, in order to conserve judicial resources, we prohibit Weidmann from filing with this Court any further pro se pleadings concerning Brevard County, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court Case Number 05-2000-CF-042942-C. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning this case from Joseph