JOSE YEYILLE v. JUSTIN COLE SPEIGEL, M.D.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 14, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D22-624, 3D22-625
Lower Tribunal No. 21-24767
________________
José Yeyille,
Appellant,
vs.
Justin Cole Speigel, M.D.,
Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R.
Manno Schurr, Judge.
José Yeyille, in proper person.
Diaz Law Group, and Rolando A. Diaz; Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein,
P.A., Dinah S. Stein and Aneta McCleary, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On May 3, 2023, upon motion of appellee Justin Cole Speigel, M.D.,
this Court issued an order to show cause directing José Yeyille to
demonstrate why he should not be barred from further pro se appeals for
filing a repetitious and frivolous motion for rehearing that impugns and
disparages the judges of this Court and a judge of the circuit court. Having
considered Mr. Yeyille’s response, we find that Mr. Yeyille has failed to show
good cause why he should not be barred from further pro se filings.
Specifically, this Court finds Mr. Yeyille violated Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.330(a)(2)(A), by filing a repetitious and frivolous
motion for rehearing that merely reasserted previously disposed of
arguments. In his motion for rehearing Mr. Yeyille failed to show—or even
state with particularity—how this Court’s per curiam affirmance conflicted
with prior precedent or violated any of his constitutional rights. Florida law
has long held that a motion for rehearing is not “an open invitation for an
unhappy litigant or attorney to reargue the same points previously presented,
or to discuss the bottomless depth of the displeasure that one might feel
toward this judicial body as a result of having unsuccessfully sought
appellate relief.” Ayala v. Gonzalez, 984 So. 2d 523, 526 (Fla. 5th DCA
2008); see also Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze Off. Assocs., LLC, 248 So. 3d
2242, 244 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (denying a motion for rehearing where “the
motion expressed disagreement with the opinion, [but] failed to identify any
ambiguity necessitating clarification”).
Under Florida law, “a citizen . . . abuses the right to pro se access by
filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the
courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate
claims.” State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). The Florida
Supreme Court has held that to ensure every citizen’s access to courts, a
court may prevent “abusive litigants from continuously filing frivolous
petitions, thus enabling the Court to devote its finite resources to those who
have not abused the system.” Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla.
1998).
The Court further finds Mr. Yeyille violated Rule 4-8.2(a), Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar, by impugning the qualifications or integrity of the
judges of this Court and of the trial court. Rule 4-8.2(a) states, in relevant
part, that a “lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be
false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge.” When determining whether the rule
was violated, the question is not whether the statement is false, but whether
3
Mr. Yeyille had an objectively reasonable factual basis for making the
statement. See The Florida Bar v. Ray, 797 So. 2d 556, 558–59 (Fla. 2001).
Mr. Yeyille’s response to the show cause order proffers no objectively
reasonable factual basis for his statements. Rather than address the show
cause order, Mr. Yeyille utilizes his response to further impugn the Judges
of this Court, stating:
1. “[A]ppellate judges in the state of Florida cannot complain about their
vaunted integrity because, thanks to the political process which allows
large law firms to choose, buy, and own them, they do not have any.”
2. “Significantly, those law firms Greenberg Traurig P.A. and Akerman
LLP own the judges of the Third District Court of Appeal.”
3. “Hitherto I have most proficiently provided evidence, and proven, that
the judges of the judiciary of the state of Florida, from the district courts
of appeals, especially the Third District Court of Appeal, to the justices
of the Florida Supreme Court, are racists and elitists who deliberately
issue PER•CURIAM affirmances, in the vast majority of cases that they
decide, to indigents, and indigent PRO•SE Black and Hispanic parties
which, in turn, preclude appeals and petitions for writs to the Florida
Supreme Court.”
4
4. “For now, and regarding this case only, I am confident to allege, based
on public information, that the Third District Court of Appeal, is a
criminal enterprise. Its judges are owned by Greenberg Traurig PA,
and associate law firms including Akerman LLP, the Florida State
Attorney’s Office, and the local and state’s governments.”
5. “But none are more brazen than the current Chief Judge of the Third
District Court of Appeal, Ivan Fernandez, whose mere presence is an
affront to the judiciary and the people of Florida, and his actions an
endless travesty of justice.”
The fact that Mr. Yeyille is acting in a pro se capacity does not insulate
him from the consequences of his actions. “On a proper showing, an
attorney may be barred from self-representation.” Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So.
2d 980, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see also Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166,
1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“This court has inherent power to prevent abuse
of court procedure by inter alia prohibiting [any] pro se parties from appearing
without the assistance of counsel.”). Even non-attorney pro se individuals
may be sanctioned for repeatedly filing motions that include personal attacks
on judges, that are “abusive,” “malicious,” “insulting,” and demeaning to the
judiciary. Martin v. State, 747 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla. 2000). At no point in his
response does Mr. Yeyille acknowledge his responsibility as a member of
5
the Florida Bar, make any statements of remorse, admit the wrongfulness of
his actions or assert any other mitigating circumstances for this Court to
consider and weigh in determining the appropriate sanctions to be imposed.
This Court, therefore, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.410(a), imposes the following sanctions upon José Yeyille for violations
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 and Rule 4-8.2(a) of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar:
1. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to reject any
further pro se filings submitted by José Yeyille, unless such filing has
been reviewed and signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good
standing.
2. We formally refer this matter to the Florida Bar for appropriate
disciplinary proceedings against José Yeyille, Esquire.
It is so ordered.
6