Opinion
SC22-1542
01-23-2023
EDWARD R. STEINER Petitioner(s) v. RICKY D. DIXON, ETC. Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 592002CF004431A000XX
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby denied. See Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 48 So.3d 704, 710 (Fla. 2010); Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 1954). No motion for rehearing or reinstatement will be entertained by this Court.
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against Petitioner. See generally, Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a).
Since 2006, Petitioner has initiated twenty other cases in this Court pertaining to case number 592002CF004431A000XX. To date, the Court has denied, dismissed, or transferred all of Petitioner's filings.
See Steiner v. Dixon, No. SC22-1058, 2022 WL 4352166 (Fla. Sept. 28, 2022) (habeas petition dismissed); Steiner v. Dixon, No. SC22-483, 2022 WL 2036334 (Fla. June 7, 2022) (habeas petition denied); Steiner v. State, No. SC22-112, 2022 WL 457869 (Fla. Feb. 15, 2022) (prohibition petition dismissed); Steiner v. Maloy, No. SC21-1765, 2022 WL 457952 (Fla. Feb. 15, 2022) (mandamus petition dismissed); Steiner v. State, No. SC21-1707, 2022 WL 454027 (Fla. Feb. 15, 2022) (prohibition petition dismissed); Steiner v. Dixon, No. SC21-1447, 2021 WL 5444113 (Fla. Nov. 22, 2021) (habeas petition dismissed); Steiner v. State, 139 So.3d 888 (Fla. 2014) (table) (notice of discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Steiner v. State, 133 So.3d 528 (Fla. 2014) (table) (notice of discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Steiner v. Crews, 135 So.3d 290 (Fla. 2014) (table) (habeas petition dismissed); Steiner v. State, 132 So.3d 223 (Fla. 2013) (table) (mandamus petition denied in part and dismissed in part); Steiner v. State, 132 So.3d 223 (Fla. 2013) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Steiner v. State, 134 So.3d 451 (Fla. 2013) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Steiner v. Crews, No. SC12-2120 (Fla. Oct. 12, 2012) (habeas petition transferred); Steiner v. State, 114 So.3d 181 (Fla. 2013) (habeas petition dismissed in part and denied in part); Steiner v. State, 114 So.3d 936 (Fla. 2013) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Steiner v. State, 13 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 2009) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Steiner v. State, 13 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 2009) (table) (habeas petition dismissed); Steiner v. The Florida Bar, 954 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2007) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Steiner v. State, 959 So.2d 717 (Fla. 2007) (table) (prohibition petition denied); Steiner v. Eslinger, No. SC06-991 (Fla. June 8, 2006) (habeas petition transferred).
This Court has chosen to sanction pro se petitioners who have abused the legal process and otherwise misused this Court's limited judicial resources by filing repeated frivolous pro se pleadings. Such petitioners have been barred from initiating further proceedings in this Court unless their pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief were filed under the signature of a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla. 2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2008); Tate v. McNeil, 983 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2008).
It appearing that Petitioner has abused the judicial process by filing numerous pro se filings in this Court that are either meritless or not appropriate for this Court's review, the Court now takes action. Therefore, Edward R. Steiner is hereby directed to show cause on or before February 6, 2023, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to case number 592002CF004431A000XX unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. The petitioner is also directed to show cause why, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2022), a certified copy of the Court's findings should not be forwarded to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Florida Department of Corrections as provided in section 944.09, Florida Statutes (2022).
CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.