Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2019–2025 · 2 courts · …in florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel. at p. 457 ✓
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Mark Elliott v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Marco Thony Cadejuste v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Devenson Walker v. Estate of Robert Yee
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Citizens of the State of Florida, etc. v. Gary F. Clark, etc.
Fla. · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in administrative appeals a claim of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) P.F-G v. Dept. of Education
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in administrative appeals a claim of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Garrison v. Department of Health, Board of Nursing
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
when a party at an informal hearing does not request that the informal hearing be terminated in lieu of a formal hearing, the party waives the right to receive a formal hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanela Hamza and Jasmin Jelec, Both as Parents and Natural Guardians of A.J., L.J., and S.J., Children v. Linda McLemore (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Appellants sought no such relief under either rule. 3 That Appellants were representing themselves below in no way relaxes the clear requirements of the rule. 2 “In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also Balch v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 128 So. 3d 179, 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Stueber, 812 So. 2d at 457 ); Romero v. Midland Funding, LLC, 358 So. 3d 806 , 809 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“While we recognize that Romero is pro se, pro se parties are [still] obligated to abide by t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Filomia v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Affirmed. 1“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). 2
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Balch v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bd. of Seminole Cnty., 830 So.2d 952, 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“Pro se litigants, however, should not be treated differently from litigants in similar situations who are represented by counsel and are charged with knowledge of those rights.” (citing Kohn)); Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So.2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” (citing Kohn))-, Gladstone, 729 So.2d at 1004 (“A pro se litigant should not be held to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney because applying a lesser standard would only…
discussed Cited "see" Michael Lawrence Woodbury v. State of Florida & Michael Lawrence Woodbury v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
Fla. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (observing that in Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel and pro se litigant was therefore not excused from preservation requirements); see also McKenzie v. State, 29 So. 3d 272, 279 (Fla. 2010) (finding an appellate challenge unpreserved and procedurally barred where pro se capital defendant did not make a timely objection during jury selection).
discussed Cited "see" Cabrera v. Outdoor Empire Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So.2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (hold ing pro se litigant waived relief requested on appeal by not preserving claimed error below).
cited Cited "see" Goodson v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS AND PROF. REG.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So.2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" Meller v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COM'N
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So.2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Walker v. Florida Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 705 So.2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see" Hoyos v. Florida Engineers Management Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So.2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also Autoworld of America Corp. v. Department of Highway Safety, 754 So.2d 76, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(“Choosing § 120.57(2) hearings in professional license disciplinary proceedings is similar to pleading guilty to the facts alleged in the administrative complaint, because they are not disputed.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James W. STUEBER, Appellant,
v.
Tom GALLAGHER as Commissioner of Education, Appellee.
5D01-1030.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Mar 1, 2002.
812 So. 2d 454
Palmer.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*455] Howard J. Hochman, Miami, for Appellant.

J. David Holder, Santa Rosa Beach, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

In this administrative appeal, James W. Stueber appeals a final order entered by the Florida Education Practices Commission ("EPC") which permanently revoked his educator's certificate. Stueber contends that he was deprived of due process of law during his informal hearing when the Commissioner of Education alleged additional claims of wrongdoing and when the EPC failed to refer the matter for a formal hearing when it became apparent that issues of material fact were in dispute. Concluding that Stueber failed to preserve his right to raise these issues on appeal, we affirm.

[*456] Stueber was employed by the Citrus County School Board as a high school art teacher. In August 2000 an administrative complaint was filed against him by the Commissioner of Education. The complaint set forth three material allegations of wrongdoing and sought disciplinary sanctions related thereto. See §§ 231.262; 231.28, Fla. Stat. (1999). First, it was alleged that Stueber "inappropriately used his school computer to access pornography on the Internet often." Second, it was alleged that Stueber had battered his wife by grabbing her, throwing her to the ground, and choking her. The third allegation charged that Stueber reconnected his school computer to access the internet without authorization.

Upon receipt of the administrative complaint, Stueber signed an election of rights form requesting a formal administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. See § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). At that time, Stueber disputed the truthfulness of all three of the material allegations in the complaint. Prior to the date set for the formal administrative hearing, Stueber filed an amended election of rights form in which he indicated that he had changed his mind and wanted to proceed with an informal hearing before the EPC. The amended form further stated that Stueber did not dispute the truthfulness of the allegations in the complaint and that the informal hearing would relate solely to the issue of mitigation of disciplinary sanctions.

An informal hearing was thereafter conducted before the EPC. At the hearing Stueber represented himself, although he had been advised that he could be represented by counsel. Each side was given ten minutes to present its case and to submit recommendations for final disposition.

Counsel for the Commissioner of Education recommended that the EPC permanently revoke Stueber's educator's certificate. To support this recommendation counsel presented materials documenting the internet sites that Stueber had accessed on his school computer. Counsel informed the EPC that Stueber was looking at "teenage oriented pornography". Counsel also offered to provide testimony from Stueber's wife that her ability to work had been adversely affected by the battering incident alleged in the complaint. In response, Stueber admitted that he had accessed inappropriate internet sites but denied accessing teenage pornography. He stated that although he could "dispute many of the items", he was "not going to" because "he knew" that he could not do so in an informal hearing. Stueber never requested the EPC to strike any of the Commissioner's alleged additional claims of wrongdoing nor did he request a formal hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the EPC voted to permanently revoke Stueber's educator's certificate.

On appeal, Stueber contends that the EPC deprived him of his right to due process of law by permitting counsel for the Commissioner of Education to raise allegations of wrongdoing that were not set forth in the administrative complaint. He also contends that this matter must be remanded for a formal administrative hearing because the EPC erred by failing to sua sponte terminate the informal hearing and refer the matter for a formal administrative hearing once Stueber denied accessing teenage pornography on his school computer thereby raising disputed issues of fact. Because Stueber failed to request any such relief below, he waived his right to receive such relief on appeal.

In administrative appeals a claim of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Shady Oaks Mobile Modular[*457] Estates v. Florida Public Serv. Comm'n, 654 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Nurse Anesthetists v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 500 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). As this court held in Walker v. Florida Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 705 So.2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), when a party at an informal hearing does not request that the informal hearing be terminated in lieu of a formal hearing, the party waives the right to receive a formal hearing.[1]

In closing, we reject Stueber's contention that the law of waiver should not be applied here because, as a non-lawyer representing himself before the EPC, he was not aware of the legal requirements relating to the preservation of error. In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel. See Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(holding that "it is a mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney").

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.

1 Even if waiver had not occurred in this case, Stueber would not have succeeded on the merits of his appeal because the evidence presented as to the nature of the pornography he viewed and the effects of his battery on his wife were issues properly presented to the EPC in addressing the appropriate penalty to be imposed at the informal hearing, and not new charges of wrongdoing as Stueber claims. See e. g. Chrysler v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 627 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Klein v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 625 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Celaya v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 560 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).