Senior Law Clerk
In John McDonald v. Amanda McDonald (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 13, 2026), the Fifth District warned that continued frivolous or abusive pro se filings in the same case may result in sanctions, including a prohibition against future pro se filings in that court. The opinion cites State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), where the Supreme Court of Florida explained that before a court imposes that kind of restriction, it should provide notice and an opportunity to respond through an order to show cause.
What happened:
McDonald filed a petition for writ of prohibition arising from Flagler County Circuit Court Case No. 2025-DR-000681. The Fifth District noted that it had previously denied an earlier prohibition petition arising from that same lower-court case. In this opinion, the court said McDonald’s filings appeared “repetitive, frivolous, and abusive,” and cautioned that any further frivolous or abusive pro se filings tied to that case may lead to sanctions, including a bar on future pro se filings in the Fifth District.
Why it matters (for trial lawyers):
Florida courts protect access to the courts, but they are not required to tolerate serial abusive filings. In Spencer, the Supreme Court recognized that cutting off future pro se filings is a serious sanction. That is why the court emphasized notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing a filing bar, and explained that an order to show cause helps create the record needed to support that relief. McDonald is a practical reminder that pro se status is not immunity: repetitive and frivolous filings can put sanctions squarely in play.
Key points:
• Repetitive, frivolous, and abusive pro se filings can trigger sanctions.
• The sanction can include a bar on future pro se filings in the same case.
• Under Spencer, the litigant should receive notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond before that bar is imposed.
• An order to show cause helps create the record supporting the sanction.
Takeaway:
When you are dealing with a stream of duplicative pro se filings, do not treat the problem as mere background noise. Build the record. Identify the prior filings, explain why they are repetitive or frivolous, and frame any request for sanctions around the Spencer procedure. McDonald shows the Fifth DCA is willing to warn first and, if the conduct continues, leave the door open to a future filing bar.
A Spencer warning should not be ignored — once a court sees a documented pattern of abusive pro se filings, a filing bar may be the next step.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.