PHILLIP VAN ZANT, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PHILLIP VAN ZANT, Petitioner, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-5866 FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. ___________________________/ Opinion filed June 21, 2012. Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction. Phillip Van Zant, pro se, Petitioner. Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits. Due to petitioner s apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated pro se filings attacking the revocation of his parole, this court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that courts first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence. ). Petitioner s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions. As such, because petitioner s continued and repeated attacks on his parole revocation have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this court challenging the 2001 revocation of parole from the judgment and sentence imposed on December 19, 1979, in Leon County Circuit Court case number 76-00450. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Petitioner is warned that any filings which violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, 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.
