Opinion
SC22-1577
02-07-2023
ARTHUR WILLIS FOLEY Petitioner(s) v. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 131999CF0376080001XX
The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed because this Court generally will not consider the repetitive petitions of persons who have abused the judicial processes of the lower courts such that they have been barred from filing certain actions there. See Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000). 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 2003, Petitioner has initiated nineteen other cases in this Court pertaining to case number 131999CF0376080001XX. To date, the Court has dismissed or denied all these filings.
Foley v. Dixon, No. SC22-795, 2022 WL 3591703 (Fla. Aug. 23, 2022) (habeas petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC20-1701, 2021 WL 376798 (Fla. Feb. 3, 2021) (all writs petition dismissed); Foley v. Inch, No. SC19-1571, 2019 WL 6358925 (Fla. Nov. 27, 2019) (habeas petition denied); Foley v. State, No. SC18-1937, 2019 WL 360125 (Fla. Jan. 28, 2019) (all writs petition dismissed); Foley v. Jones, No. SC18-199, 2018 WL 1004649 (Fla. Feb. 22, 2018) (habeas petition dismissed); Foley v. Jones, No. SC15-2322, 2016 WL 743747 (Fla. Feb. 24, 2015) (Habeas petition dismissed); Foley v. Crews, No. SC14-2015, 157 So.3d 1043 (Fla. 2014) (habeas petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC14-1598, 151 So.3d 1224 (Fla. 2014) (all writs petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC13-1599, 132 So.3d 220 (Fla. 2013) (petition for discretionary review denied); Foley v. Tucker, No. SC11-2521, 81 So.3d 413 (Fla. 2012) (habeas petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC11-1127, 73 So.3d 759 (Fla. 2011) (all writs petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC10-710, 35 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2010) (petition for discretionary review dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC08-888, 994 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 2008) (petition for discretionary review dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC07-164, 969 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2007) (prohibition petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC06-1891, 944 So.2d 344 (Fla. 2006) (petition for discretionary review voluntarily dismissed); Foley v. McDonough, No. SC05-2314, 935 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2006) (habeas petition denied); Foley v. Crosby, No. SC03-471, 912 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2005) (habeas petition dismissed); Foley v. State, No. SC03-2456, 870 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2004) (all writs dismissed).
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, Arthur Willis Foley is hereby directed to show cause on or before February 22, 2023, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to case number 131999CF0376080001XX unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. 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, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.