Opinion
SC2024-1315
11-25-2024
Charlene Rosa, Petitioner(s) v. State of Florida, Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 062004CF010827A88810; 062005CF014414A88810
The petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner has failed to cite an independent basis that would allow the Court to exercise its all writs authority and no such basis is apparent on the face of the petition. See Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541, 543-44 (Fla. 2005); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980). The motion to file a second amended petition filed on November 15, 2024, is hereby denied. No rehearing will be considered by this Court.
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against the petitioner. See generally, Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a).
Since 2011, the petitioner has initiated fourteen other cases in this Court pertaining to Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court case numbers 062004CF010827A88810 and 062005CF014414A88810. See Rosa v. State, No. SC2023-1273 (Fla. Oct. 25, 2023) (mandamus dismissed); Rosa v. Dixon, No. SC2023-323 (Fla. May 26, 2022) (habeas transferred to the circuit court); Rosa v. State, No. SC2022-1598 (Fla. Feb. 2, 2023) (all writs dismissed); Rosa v. State, No. SC2021-0319 (Fla. Apr. 26, 2021) (mandamus dismissed); Rosa v. Inch, No. SC2020-1617 (Fla. Mar. 18, 2021) (habeas denied); Rosa v. State, No. SC2019-1839 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2019) (prohibition denied); Rosa v. Inch, No. SC2019-1759 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2019) (habeas dismissed as unauthorized); Rosa v. State, No. SC2017-1629 (Fla. Sept. 7, 2017) (mandamus dismissed); Rosa v. State, No. SC2016-1649 (Fla. Sept. 12, 2016) (habeas dismissed); Rosa v. State, No. SC2015-1361 (Fla. July 24, 2015) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Rosa v. State, No. SC2015-1359 (Fla. Oct. 27, 2015) (voluntarily dismissed); Rosa v. State, No. SC2014-2020 (Fla. Oct. 21, 2014) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Rosa v. State, No. SC2012-2267 (Fla. Mar. 12, 2013) (mandamus denied); Rosa v. State, No. SC2011-2433 (Fla. Dec. 27, 2011) (voluntarily 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 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, Charlene Rosa is hereby directed to show cause on or before December 10, 2024, why she should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to case numbers 062004CF010827A88810 and 062005CF014414A88810, 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 (2024), 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 (2024).
CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.