Opinion
SC21-1190
12-13-2021
SAMUEL RIVERA Petitioner(s) v. RICKY D. DIXON, ETC. Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 131985CF0250370001XX
Corrected December 13, 2021 to reflect correct due date for response.
Because the Court has determined that relief is not authorized, this case is hereby dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). Any motions or other requests for relief are also denied. 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 2009, Petitioner has initiated fifteen other cases in this Court pertaining to case number 131985CF0250370001XX. To date, the Court has dismissed or denied all fifteen of Petitioner's filings.
See Rivera v. Inch, No. SC21-819, 2021 WL 3085140 (Fla. Jul. 22, 2021) (habeas petition dismissed); Rivera v. Inch, No. SC21-357, 2021 WL 1430347 (Fla. Apr. 15, 2021) (habeas petition dismissed); Rivera v. Moody, No. SC20-238, 2020 WL 1888673 (Fla. Apr. 16, 2020) (quo warranto petition denied); Rivera v. State, No. SC17-1961, 2018 WL 703995 (Fla. Feb. 05, 2018) (petition for review denied); Rivera v. State, 192 So.3d 41 (Fla. 2015) (all writs petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 182 So.3d 634 (Fla. 2015) (mandamus petition dismissed); Rivera v. Jones, 168 So.3d 228 (Fla. 2015) (habeas petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 122 So.3d 869 (Fla. 2013) (mandamus petition denied); Rivera v. Tucker, 103 So.3d 141 (Fla. 2012) (habeas petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 105 So.3d 522 (Fla. 2012) (mandamus petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 51 So.3d 466 (Fla. 2010) (mandamus petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 49 So.3d 747 (Fla. 2010) (mandamus petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 15 So.3d 581 (Fla. 2009) (all writs petition dismissed); Rivera v. State, 14 So.3d 242 (Fla. 2009) (petition for review dismissed); Rivera v. State, 13 So.3d 469 (Fla. 2009) (petition for review 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, Samuel Rivera is hereby directed to show cause on or before December 28, 2021, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to case number 131985CF0250370001XX 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 (2021), 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 (2021).
POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.