Washington v. Justice · No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA) · Decided October 7, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
Two pro se appellants whose initial brief cited eleven cases the Second District Court of Appeal “could not locate” have been barred from filing further pro se appeals or original proceedings in that court related to their underlying Hillsborough County lawsuit. The court also held it did not need to apply the Florida Supreme Court’s 2026 amendment to Rule 2.515 retroactively in order to sanction a brief that relied on fictitious case law. The body of the per curiam opinion states, “we dismiss this appeal”; the disposition line at the end of the opinion reads, “Affirmed.”
What Happened
LaVonne and Michael Washington, representing themselves, appealed a final order dismissing their complaint in Hillsborough County Circuit Court case 24-CA-010301. The appellees were Gina Justice and Victor Crist, sued solely in his official capacity as Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller, Hillsborough County. The opinion does not describe the subject of the underlying complaint.
The Washingtons’ initial brief cited eleven cases that the court could not locate. The court ordered them either to provide copies of the eleven cases or to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed “for submitting a brief that relied on fictitious case law.” Citing their “numerous meritless filings” in this case and two others related to the same lower court case, the order specifically named dismissal and an order barring further pro se filings as possible sanctions.
The Washingtons did not provide copies of the cases. They described the citations as scrivener’s errors “resulting from intense logistical pressure,” said they had been “forced to manually consolidate overlapping fully briefed legal arguments across three distinct appellate tracks . . . without professional legal verification software,” and said the volume and page numbers had been “mangled” during drafting. They also argued that their brief was filed before Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2)(D) was promulgated and that the court could not apply that rule retroactively to sanction them.
What the Court Held
The explanation. The court found that the response “fails to adequately explain the inclusion of the fabricated case citations.” The response, the court noted, “neither confesses nor denies” that the citations resulted from generative artificial intelligence. The court wrote that “[i]t is likely that the inclusion of the fake case citations is the result of generative artificial intelligence,” but added: “Regardless, it is not the source of the fictitious cases that concerns us, but the Washingtons’ reliance on them in their brief.”
The court cited decisions from the Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Districts holding that submitting fictitious cases is sanctionable. Relying on Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), it explained that such submissions are sanctionable because they abuse the adversary system, waste the court’s time, and could harm the reputation of judges and parties whose names are falsely invoked.
No retroactivity problem. The Florida Supreme Court amended rule 2.515(d)(2) to provide that the signer of a filing certifies that the legal authorities cited “exist and are accurately cited.” But the Second District said it “need not retroactively apply rule 2.515(d)(2)(D) to impose sanctions.” Before the amendment, the court noted, courts applied the earlier version of the rule and held that pro se parties and attorneys represent the accuracy of a filing by signing it, citing Hessert v. Hessert, 431 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). It also cited Davidson v. Chang-Warner, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1311 (Fla. 6th DCA June 26, 2026), which said the amendment’s requirements “merely clarify what already fell within the scope of the preexisting requirements of rule 2.515(d)(2).” “Because a citation to a nonexistent case is not accurate,” the court wrote, “signing a filing that contains fictitious citations breaches that representation.” Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), the court said, it may sanction that breach “without reliance on the amended version of the rule.”
Filing history. The court also weighed the Washingtons’ filings in two related proceedings. Appeal 2D2025-1883 was dismissed as taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order, and in 2D2025-2170 the court denied their petition for writ of quo warranto and all writs. Across all three cases, the court said, the Washingtons raised meritless challenges to the court’s fee orders and filed meritless motions for rehearing. The court quoted the Florida Supreme Court’s statement in State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), that a citizen “abuses the right to pro se access [to the courts] by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings.”
The sanctions. Citing the reliance on fictitious cases, the Washingtons’ “unavailing response to this court’s order, and pattern of frivolous filings,” the court wrote, “we dismiss this appeal.” It directed its clerk to place in an inactive file any original proceedings or notices of appeal filed by LaVonne or Michael Washington related to case 24-CA-010301 unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar or relates to a proceeding pending when the opinion issued. The opinion then closes with the disposition line “Affirmed.” The opinion does not address the difference between the two.
In a footnote, the court noted that the Washingtons have other proceedings pending in the court that are unrelated to this lower court case, and cautioned that “further frivolous filings or the submission of fictitious case citations in those cases may result in additional sanctions.”
Why It Matters
The opinion addresses whether a brief filed before the 2026 amendment to rule 2.515(d)(2) can be sanctioned for citing cases that do not exist. The Second District answered yes, resting its authority on Rule 9.410(a) and the accuracy representation that a signature already carried under the earlier version of rule 2.515. The court also made clear that, in its view, the source of fictitious citations does not matter; the litigant’s reliance on them does.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Second District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 2D2025-2678 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Hillsborough County (Judge Kemba Damali Johnson Lewis) |
| Opinion by | Per curiam (Northcutt, Kelly, and Morris, JJ.) |
| Decided | October 7, 2026 |
| Result | Opinion text: “we dismiss this appeal” (p. 4); disposition line: “Affirmed.” (p. 5). Clerk directed to place future pro se filings related to case 24-CA-010301 in an inactive file unless signed by a Florida Bar member or related to a proceeding already pending |