← Case library
3rd DCAApril 8, 2020Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted; Order Quashed in Part⭐ Notable

Humes v. Solanki

Case No. 19-0601

After a pro se plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint was dismissed with prejudice, she filed a notice for trial a year later, prompting the defendant to move to strike and to request a bar on future pro se filings. The trial court struck the notice and barred the plaintiff from making any further filings not signed by a Florida Bar member. The Third DCA treated the appeal as a certiorari petition, held the order was not an appealable final or non-final order, and quashed the bar-order portion because no Spencer order to show cause had been issued, while leaving the remainder intact. Judge Logue dissented, arguing Spencer's show-cause requirement should not be mechanically extended from post-conviction to civil cases where the litigant had actual notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Key facts

  • Pro se plaintiff filed a notice for trial approximately one year after her medical malpractice complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
  • Defendant moved to strike the notice and requested that the trial court bar the plaintiff from making any future filings unless signed by a Florida Bar member.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

The Third DCA aligns itself with the First, Second and Fourth DCAs in extending State v. Spencer's show-cause procedure to pro se bar orders in civil cases, and confirms that review of such orders is by certiorari… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.