Opinion
No. SC12–1986.
2013-08-28
Donald WILLIAMS, Petitioner(s) v. Michael D. CREWS, etc., Respondent(s).
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed because this Court generally will not consider the repetitive petitions of persons who have abused the judicial processes of the lower courts such that they have been barred from filing certain actions there. See Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930, 931 (Fla.2000). Any motions or other requests for relief are denied.
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner. See generallyFla. R.App. P. 9.410(a).
Since 2012, the petitioner has initiated eight other cases in this Court. See Williams v. State, Case No. SC12–2152 (Fla. March. 13, 2013) (mandamus petition denied); Williams v. State, Case No. SC12–2430 (Fla. March 13, 2013) (mandamus petition dismissed); Williams v. State, 103 So.3d 144 (Fla.2012) (unpublished table decision) (mandamus petition dismissed as moot); Williams v. State, Case No. SC12–976 (Fla. June 25, 2012) (mandamus petition transferred to the district court); Williams v. State, Case No. SC12–974 (Fla. June 15, 2012) (mandamus petition transferred to the circuit court); Williams v. Tucker, 103 So.3d 144 (Fla.2012) (unpublished table decision) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as unauthorized); Williams v. Tucker, 90 So.3d 274 (Fla.2012) (unpublished table decision) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as unauthorized): Williams v. State, 92 So.3d 215 (Fla.2012) (unpublished table decision) (mandamus petition denied without prejudice).
This 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, nonmeritorious, or otherwise inappropriate filings related to their convictions and sentences. Such petitioners have been barred from initiating further proceedings in this Court related to their convictions and sentences 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 petitioner has abused the judicial process by filing numerous pro se filings in this Court that contain misrepresentations of fact, are meritless, or not appropriate for this Court's review, the Court now takes action. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby directed to show cause on or before September 12, 2013, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to Case No. 02–37491–CF 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.