Opinion
Case No. SC04-1441.
November 9, 2004.
Petitioner submitted a pleading which this Court treated as a petition for writ of mandamus. The petition, and various supplements thereto, are hereby transferred, pursuant to Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1999), to the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida. The transfer of this case should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits of the petition, nor as a determination that the transferee court has jurisdiction or that the petition has been properly denominated as a petition for writ of mandamus. The transferee court should not interpret the transfer of this case as an indication that it must or should reach the merits of the petition. The transferee court shall treat the petition as if it had been originally filed there on the date it was filed in this Court. Any determination concerning whether a filing fee shall be applicable to this case shall be made by the transferee court. Any and all pending motions in this case are hereby deferred to the transferee court.
This case constitutes the fifteenth case initiated by petitioner pro se since August of 1997. Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, is variously known to this Court as George Jean, Jean George, George Geneus, and Georges Geneus.
Eight of petitioner's cases were habeas corpus proceedings in which he was not granted relief by this Court. See Jean v. State, Case No. SC02-486 (Fla. Jun. 5, 2002) (transferring case to a lower tribunal); Jean v. Moore, Case No. SC01-2699 (Fla. Dec. 12, 2001) (same); Jean v. Moore, Case No. SC01-2060 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2001) (same); Jean v. State, Case No. SC01-1536 (Fla. May 30, 2002) (dismissing claim for relief against United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and United States Immigration Court for lack of jurisdiction, and transferring remainder of case to a lower tribunal); George v. State, Case No. SC95273 (Fla. May 20, 1999) (dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction to the extent petitioner was seeking review of a district court of appeal decision, and transferring remainder of case to a lower tribunal); George v. Singletary, Case No. SC93279 (Fla. Nov. 9, 1998) (transferring case to a lower tribunal); Geneus v. Cochran, Case No. SC91637 (Fla. Nov. 19, 1997) (same); George v. Cochran, Case No. SC91205 (Fla. Sept. 12, 1997) (denying petition without elaboration).
Four of petitioner's cases were discretionary review proceedings in which the Court either dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, see Jean v. Crosby, Case No. SC03-189 (Fla. Feb. 5, 2003); George v. State, Case No. SC02-269 (Fla. Feb. 7, 2002); George v. State, Case No. SC95131 (Fla. Mar. 25, 1999), or dismissed the case as a sanction based on petitioner's failure to file a proper jurisdictional brief in accordance with numerous orders of the Court. See Jean v. State, Case No. SC03-190 (Fla. Oct. 4, 2004).
One of petitioner's cases was an appeal over which this Court had no jurisdiction. See Jean v. State, Case No. SC02-1237 (Fla. Jun. 6, 2002) (transferring appeal to district court of appeal).
The only other case petitioner has filed in this Court, other than the subject case, is a mandamus proceeding seeking reinstatement of a case dismissed by a district court of appeal. That case remains pending at this time. See Jean v. Charlotte Correctional Institution, Case No. SC04-743.
The number of pleadings filed by petitioner in the relatively small number of cases filed by him in this Court totals 119. Because the docketing and processing of each of these pleadings has consumed a great deal of this Court's finite resources (mostly due to the incomprehensible nature of most of those filings), the Court finds that a limitation on petitioner's ability to initiate any further pro se proceedings in this Court may be necessary in order to further the constitutional right of access of other litigants in that it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims filed by others. See In Re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (noting that "[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources").
Accordingly, petitioner is hereby directed to show cause on or before November 24, 2004, why this Court should not impose upon him a sanction for his litigiousness, such as directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by him unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.