Opinion
SC21-1738
01-13-2022
MICHAEL LORUSSO Petitioner(s) v. JAKE PILLSBURY Respondent(s)
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); Tyson v. Florida Bar, 826 So.2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 2002). 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 2020, the petitioner has initiated sixteen other cases in this Court pertaining to Sixth Judicial Circuit Court case numbers 19-CF-05991 and 20-CF-04126. See Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1417 (Fla. Dec. 13, 2021) (mandamus dismissed); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1671 (Fla. Dec. 7, 2021) (notice dismissed as untimely); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1496 (Fla. Dec. 2, 2021) (prohibition denied); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1544 (Fla. Nov. 30, 2021) (mandamus denied); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1413 (Fla. Nov. 9, 2021) (prohibition denied); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1352 (Fla. Oct. 20, 2021) (prohibition denied); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1454 (Fla. Oct. 20, 2021) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1276 (Fla. Sept. 15, 2021) (mandamus petition transferred); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-1139 (Fla. Sept. 13, 2021) (mandamus petition transferred); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-702 (Fla. Jun. 7, 2021) (mandamus petition transferred); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-168 (Fla. Feb. 16, 2021) (mandamus dismissed); Lorusso v. State, No. SC21-167 (Fla. Mar. 9, 2021) (prohibition petition transferred); Lorusso v. Gualtieri, No. SC20-1832 (Fla. Jan. 12, 2021) (mandamus petition transferred); Lorusso v. State, No. SC20-1451 (Fla. Oct. 14, 2020) (mandamus petition transferred); Lorusso v. State, No. SC20-1235 (Fla. Sept. 15, 2020) (mandamus petition transferred); Lorusso v. Gualtieri, No. SC20-1234 (Fla. Sept. 10, 2020) (habeas petition transferred).
The 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, non-meritorious, 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); Rivera v. State, 728 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1998).
It appearing that the 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, Michael Lorusso is hereby directed to show cause on or before January 28, 2022, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to Case Nos. 19-CF-05991 and 20-CF-04126 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.
LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.