GONZALEZ v. STATE (2021)

We affirm the order under review, and write only because we find that this appeal, like numerous others Appellant has filed, is completely frivolous and a waste of judicial resources. This Court's records reflect that, in addition to this case, Appellant has filed at least six prior cases in this Court related to her ongoing attacks against Judge Michael J. Rudisill, a Seminole County circuit judge who presided over a domestic relations case against Appellant's former spouse. That underlying dispute was Eighteenth Circuit Case No. 2000-DR-1898-02. A related case, a foreclosure action against Appellant's property in which the same judge is assigned, is Eighteenth Circuit Case No. 2016-CA-1283. This Court's cases in which Appellant continued or continues to pursue this frivolous issue against Judge Rudisill include Case Nos. 17-1281, 18-186, 18-1881, 19-1472, 19-3830, 20-3050, and 21-1399. None of the disposed cases have had any merit, and neither does this one.

These cases reveal a history of repetitious and frivolous filings, which consume scarce judicial resources needed for meritorious cases. Accordingly, pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), Appellant shall file a response within 20 days to show why sanctions should not be imposed on her, including a complete bar against any further pro se filings in this Court related to her claims against Judge Rudisill. Appellant is advised that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions without further opportunity to be heard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.

Affirmed and Response Ordered.

Per Curiam.

Ray, Makar, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.