Lavallee v. McIntosh — Court bars further pro se filings in appeal

Case
Lance Lavallee, et al. v. Andre McIntosh, et al.
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
SCALES, C.J. (Rick Scott, 2013); FERNANDEZ, J. (Rick Scott, 2011); Bokor, J. (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
3D26-1542
Topics
Appellate procedure; Pro se litigation; Vexatious filings
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Lance Lavallee appealed a July 16, 2026, default final judgment of possession entered by the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. After filing his notice of appeal on July 17, Lavallee submitted more than 60 filings in the appeal, including about 30 motions.

Many of the motions sought a stay of the writ of possession or enforcement of that writ. The Third District denied those motions, but Lavallee continued to file virtually identical requests. After warning him on August 3 that continued successive and frivolous filings could result in sanctions, the court issued an order to show cause on August 12. Lavallee’s response repeated arguments made in motions already denied.

The Court’s Holding

Exercising its inherent authority to address abuse of the judicial process, the Third District held that Lavallee had not shown good cause to continue representing himself in the appeal. It prohibited him from making any further pro se motions, pleadings, petitions, notices, or other filings in this case.

The court directed its clerk to refuse any future filings unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed and in good standing with The Florida Bar. The order took effect immediately, and the court stated that it would entertain no motions for rehearing.

Key Takeaways

  • An appellate court may restrict a litigant’s pro se filings when repetitive, meritless submissions abuse the judicial process.
  • A warning and an opportunity to show cause preceded the filing restriction here.
  • The restriction applies to this appeal; future filings must be made through Florida counsel.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates the Third District’s willingness to use its inherent authority to curb repetitive appellate motion practice, particularly when repeated stay requests have already been denied. It does not decide the merits of Lavallee’s appeal from the possession judgment; it regulates how he may proceed in that appeal.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top