From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanier v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Dec 14, 2007
973 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 2007)

Opinion

Nos. SC07-1568, SC07-1629, SC07-1839, SC07-2062.

December 14, 2007.

Lower Tribunal No(s). F07-18004.


The above cases are hereby consolidated, on the Court's own motion, for purposes of consideration.

The petitions are hereby dismissed. The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions.

Petitioner previously has been sanctioned by this Court, on October 25, 2004, in case number SC02-2139, and on June 30, 2005, in case number SC04-1100, for his clear abuse of the judicial process in this Court. Subsequent to that last sanction, petitioner has initiated twenty-two pro se proceedings. Of the twelve cases that have been resolved, the Court has not granted petitioner the relief he sought. See Lanier v. Parker, No. SC06-2256 (Fla. Nov. 28, 2006) (transferring petition for writ of habeas corpus); Lanier v. Parker, No. SC07-1247 (Fla. Jul. 11, 2007) (same); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1439 (Fla. Aug. 16, 2007) (transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1483 (Fla. Aug. 9, 2007) (transferring appeal); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1496 (Fla. Aug. 16, 2007) (transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1524 (Fla. Aug. 15, 2007) (dismissing discretionary review proceeding for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1597 (Fla. Aug. 24, 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. McDonough, No. SC07-1703 (Fla. Oct. 16, 2007) (transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1761 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1764 (Fla. Oct. 17, 2007) (same); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1843 (Fla. Oct. 3, 2007) (transferring appeal); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-2110 (Fla. Nov. 9, 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

Because petitioner continues to abuse the processes of this Court with his numerous 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 file 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"). On occasion, this Court has sanctioned individuals who have abused this Court's time and resources by filing multiple frivolous pro se petitions. See Jackson v. Florida Dep't of Corrections, 790 So. 2d 398, 402 (Fla. 2001). In so ruling, the Court noted that such action did not violate the constitutional right of access to the courts:

While we are cognizant of the access to courts implications of refusing to accept any more petitions from Jackson unless they are signed by an attorney, we are also concerned that failure to impose this sanction will handicap this Court's ability to timely review the many other petitions filed by inmates and other petitioners who have not abused the system. While on the one hand, we would like to say that the courts should never limit a person's ability to access the courts, on the other hand, there are a handful of petitioners who have so abused the system that failure to restrain them could deny or delay the right to access to courts for the rest of the populace.

Id. at 401. Like the petitioner in Jackson, Lanier has abused the processes of this Court with his constant meritless and abusive filings. This Court is now forced to limit Lanier's ability to monopolize this Court's time. Accordingly, this Court hereby issues the following order to show cause:

TO: GUS LANIER

It appears to the Court that you have abused the legal system by filing an excessive number of frivolous, meritless, or facially insufficient filings in this Court. Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before January 2, 2008, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system, including, but not limited to directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or other pleadings submitted to this Court by you, unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.

ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lanier v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Dec 14, 2007
973 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 2007)
Case details for

Lanier v. State

Case Details

Full title:GUS LANIER, Petitioner(s) v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent(s), GUS LANIER…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Dec 14, 2007

Citations

973 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 2007)