Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499

Diego J. Jimenez was convicted and, on Sept. 5, 2003, sentenced to 60 years and 364 days for multiple offenses including aggravated assault on an officer and resisting arrest with violence.
Over roughly a decade Jimenez filed numerous pro se postconviction motions (Rule 3.800(a), 3.850) and multiple petitions for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus in state and federal courts; many were denied as frivolous, successive, or otherwise dismissed.
The trial court issued an order to show cause and then, on May 19, 2015, barred Jimenez from filing further pro se pleadings relating to his case (F00-38717), warning of disciplinary referral under § 944.279 for violations.
This Court gave Jimenez notice and an opportunity to respond pursuant to State v. Spencer and related authority; after review the Court concluded Jimenez had not shown good cause to continue filing pro se and that his filings were meritless and abusive of judicial resources.
The Third District directed clerks to refuse to accept further pro se filings in that case unless signed by an attorney admitted to The Florida Bar; the Court also warned of possible sanctions including referral to the Department of Corrections and forfeiture of gain time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jimenez should be prohibited from filing further pro se papers in his criminal case	Jimenez asserted entitlement to continue bringing pro se challenges to his conviction and sentence	Court argued Jimenez repeatedly filed frivolous, successive claims after adverse rulings, abusing process	Court prohibited further pro se filings related to case F00-38717 absent attorney signature
Whether prior adverse rulings and volume of filings justify restricting access	Jimenez maintained his filings raised cognizable claims deserving review	Court emphasized need to preserve judicial resources and that access is not unfettered when filings are abusive	Court found restrictions warranted after notice and opportunity to respond
Whether clerk should accept future filings from Jimenez without counsel signature	Jimenez likely argued procedural access to file should remain open	Court and State argued to prevent frivolous submissions clerks should refuse filings not signed by counsel	Court directed clerks to refuse pro se papers unless signed by Florida Bar attorney
Whether sanctions (disciplinary referral, forfeiture of gain time) are appropriate for unauthorized filings	Jimenez likely contested threat of sanctions as punitive or chilling	Court noted statutory authority and precedent for disciplinary referrals for repeated abuse	Court warned of sanctions and upheld referral mechanism as appropriate deterrent

State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (procedural requirement to give notice and opportunity to respond before restricting pro se filings)
Concepcion v. State, 944 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (right to proceed pro se is limited where litigant abuses process by repeatedly relitigating rejected claims)
Philpot v. State, 183 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (courts may restrict pro se filings after abuse; frivolous claims can obscure legitimate ones)
Hedrick v. State, 6 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (discussing how frivolous filings burden courts and can hide meritorious claims)
Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (articulating the ‘enough is enough’ principle for prolific pro se filers)
Cruz v. State, 981 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (authorizing prohibition of further pro se filings in a particular case)
Whipple v. State, 112 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (supporting clerk refusal to accept pro se filings and use of sanctions for repeated abuse)