JOHN HENRY BUFFORD vs STATE OF FLORIDA AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JOHN HENRY BUFFORD, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D21-127 STATE OF FLORIDA AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 16, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Marlene M. Alva, Judge. John Henry Bufford, Raiford, pro se. No Appearance for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 2001-CF-000337-A, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 2001-CF-000337-A. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Further Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED. EVANDER, C.J., COHEN AND WALLIS, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.