Opinion
No. SC15–761.
05-15-2015
Brian M. CASEY, Petitioner(s) v. STATE of Florida, Respondent(s).
Opinion
Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000).
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner. See generally Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a).
Since 2011, petitioner has initiated thirty-four other cases in this Court. See Casey v. State, Case No. SC14–2136 (Fla. March 25, 2015) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed as moot); Casey v. State, Case No. SC14–115 (Fla. April 7, 2014) (mandamus petition transferred to district court); Casey v. Crews, Case No. SC14–243 (Fla. March 12, 2014) (habeas petition transferred to circuit court); Casey v. State, 139 So.3d 296 (Fla.2014) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Casey v. Bailey, SC13–1307 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2014) (mandamus petition transferred to circuit court); Casey v. State, 135 So.3d 285 (Fla.2014) (table) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed); Casey v. State, 139 So.3d 296 (Fla.2014) (table) (prohibition petition denied); Casey v. State, 135 So.3d 285 (Fla.2014) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed); Casey v. State, 145 So.3d 822 (Fla.2013) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed); Casey v. State, 130 So.3d 691 (Fla.2013) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed); Casey v. State, 130 So.3d 1275 Fla.2013) (table) (prohibition petition voluntarily dismissed); Casey v. State, 130 So.3d 1275 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed); Casey v. State, 130 So.3d 1275 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed); Casey v. State, 123 So.3d 1146 (Fla.2013) (table) (notice dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Casey v. State, 123 So.3d 557 (Fla.2013) (table) (notice dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Casey v. State, 120 So.3d 559 (Fla.2013) (table) (notice dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Casey v. State, 120 So.3d 559 (Fla.2013) (table) (notice dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Casey v.. State, 131 So.3d 787 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed); Casey v. State, 123 So.3d 557 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Casey v. Crews, 115 So.3d 999 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Casey v. State, 129 So.3d 1067 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed as unauthorized); Casey v. Crews, 116 So.3d 1260 (Fla.2013) (table) (habeas petition denied in part and dismissed in part); Casey v. State, 115 So.3d 999 (Fla.2013) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Casey v. Crews, 116 So.3d 1260 (Fla.2013) (habeas petition dismissed as unauthorized); Casey v. Crews, 120 So.3d 559 (Fla.2013) (table) (habeas petition dismissed as unauthorized); Casey v. Crews, 116 So.3d 381 (Fla.2013) (table) (habeas petition dismissed as unauthorized); Casey v. State, Case No. SC12–845 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2012) (prohibition petition transferred to circuit court); Casey v. Green, Case No. SC12–861 (Fla. Oct. 8, 2012) (mandamus petition transferred to circuit court); Casey v. State, 104 So.3d 1082 (Fla.2012) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed as unauthorized); Casey v. State, Case No. SC12–837 (Fla. Sept. 27, 2012) (prohibition petition transferred to district court); Casey v. State, Case No. SC12–835 (Fla. Sept. 27, 2012) (habeas petition transferred to district court); Casey v. State, Case No. SC12–809 (Fla. May 22, 2012) (prohibition petition transferred to district court); Casey v. State, 77 So.3d 646 (Fla.2011) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Casey v. State, 77 So.3d 646 (Fla.2011) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed as unauthorized).
This Court has chosen to sanction pro se petitioners who have abused the judicial process and otherwise misused this Court's limited judicial resources by filing frivolous, nonmeritorious, or otherwise inappropriate filings related to their convictions and sentences. 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, Brian M. Casey is hereby directed to show cause on or before June 8, 2015, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to Case Nos. 10–CF–17674, 10–CF–19724, 10–CF–19726, and 10–CF–19945, 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, 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.
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and PERRY, JJ., concur.