WILMARIO TRUEBLOOD
v.
SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court dismissed a pro se petitioner's request for certiorari relief, finding his motion to be premature and his filings to be frivolous. The court also ordered the petitioner to show cause why he should not be barred from future pro se filings due to his history of abusing judicial resources.
The court held that the petitioner's motion was premature and that certiorari relief was not warranted. The court also found that the petitioner's history of frivolous filings justified requiring him to show cause why he should not be barred from future pro se filings.
[1] A court may bar a pro se litigant from filing further petitions when the litigant has demonstrated a pattern of filing frivolous motions and petitions, as such a bar prot…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[T]his court generally will not exercise its certiorari review where the objection is that the requested production is vague, overbroad, and irrelevant.”
This quote explains the court's reluctance to grant certiorari review for certain types of objections, implying the petitioner's motion may fall into this category.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought certiorari relief from the trial court's dismissal of his "Motion for Expressed and Distinct Demand for Performance Before Manda…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sanctions For Non-Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks certiorari relief for the trial court’s dismissal of his Motion for Expressed and Distinct Demand for Performance Before Mandamus. We dismiss his petition. See All About Cruises, Inc. v. Cruise Options, Inc., 889 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[T]his court generally will not exercise its certiorari review where the objection is that the requested production is vague, overbroad, and irrelevant.”); cf. Brown v. Vocelle, 630 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“A record need not be provided merely to allow a prisoner to comb through it with the hope of discovering some flaw. Until the trial court has before it a motion attacking the judgment or sentence to which transcripts may be relevant, the trial court
has no duty to rule on the premature motion, and mandamus will not be granted if its issuance would prove unavailing.”).
Additionally, this Court’s records reflect that, in addition to this case, Petitioner has filed at least seven prior postconviction petitions and appeals in this Court related to Leon County Circuit Court case numbers 2013-CF-0916 and 2013-CF-0915: 1D20-1318, 1D20-1050, 1D19-3560, 1D17-4307/4308, 1D14-2477/2478, 1D20-3205, 1D20-2600. These cases reveal a history of filing frivolous postconviction motions and petitions.
The courts have a responsibility to ensure every citizen’s right of access to the courts. See Peterson v. State, 817 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 2002); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). Because frivolous motions and petitions use limited judicial resources, placing an unnecessary burden on the courts and the public, a bar on pro se filing is sometimes required for the “protection of the rights of others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings.” Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008); see also Peterson, 817 So. 2d at 840 (“This Court has a responsibility to ensure every citizen’s right of access to the courts . . . A limitation on [the petitioner’s] ability to file would further the constitutional right to access for other litigants because it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims filed by others.”).
Accordingly, pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), Petitioner shall show cause within 20 days of the date of this opinion why he should not be barred from filing further pro se filings in this Court. Petitioner is advised that the failure to comply with the terms of this opinion within the time allowed may result in the imposition of sanctions without further opportunity to be heard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.
DISMISSED.
ROBERTS, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- In re McDONALD, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Peterson v. State, 817 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2002)
- Brantley v. State, 889 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Fontainebleau Hilton & United Self-Insured Servs. v. Baldomino, 630 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)