373 So.3d 1238
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- On May 3, 2023, appellee Justin Cole Speigel moved for an order to show cause against pro se appellant José Yeyille for filing a repetitious and frivolous motion for rehearing that disparaged judges.
- The Court found Yeyille’s rehearing motion merely reasserted previously disposed arguments and did not identify any conflict with precedent or constitutional violations, violating Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a)(2)(A).
- The Court also concluded Yeyille’s filings impugned the integrity of appellate and trial judges without an objectively reasonable factual basis, violating Rule 4-8.2(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
- Yeyille’s response to the show-cause order continued to make accusatory claims (e.g., corruption, ownership of judges by law firms, racism) and did not offer mitigation, remorse, or a factual basis for his allegations.
- The Court sanctioned Yeyille under Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a): (1) the Clerk must reject any further pro se filings from Yeyille unless reviewed and signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing; and (2) the matter is referred to The Florida Bar for possible disciplinary proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yeyille’s motion for rehearing was repetitious/frivolous under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a)(2)(A) | Yeyille reasserted prior arguments and alleged judicial bias/corruption warranting rehearing | Speigel argued the motion reargued already-decided points and lacked any showing of conflict or legal error | The Court held the motion was repetitious and frivolous and violated Rule 9.330(a)(2)(A) |
| Whether Yeyille’s statements impugned judges in violation of Rule 4-8.2(a) | Yeyille contended his allegations were based on public information and evidence of judicial bias and corruption | Speigel argued Yeyille lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis for attacking judges’ integrity | The Court held Yeyille violated Rule 4-8.2(a) because he offered no objectively reasonable factual basis for the accusations |
| Whether the Court could restrict Yeyille’s future pro se filings and refer him to The Florida Bar | Yeyille implicitly relied on pro se access and did not concede wrongdoing | Speigel sought to prevent further abusive filings and urged discipline | The Court exercised its authority: barred further pro se filings unless signed by a Florida Bar member and referred the matter to The Florida Bar for discipline |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. Gonzalez, 984 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (motion for rehearing is not a vehicle to reargue decided points)
- Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze Off. Assocs., LLC, 248 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (denying rehearing where movant failed to identify ambiguity)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (abuse of pro se access by repetitious frivolous filings diminishes court resources)
- Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998) (courts may prevent abusive litigants from continuously filing frivolous petitions)
- The Florida Bar v. Ray, 797 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2001) (objective-reasonableness standard for attacks on judges)
- Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (attorney may be barred from self-representation on proper showing)
- Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (courts may prohibit pro se appearances to prevent abuse)
- Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2000) (sanctioning pro se litigants for abusive, insulting attacks on the judiciary)