WILLIE JAMES, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH S. TUCKER, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 court held that the inmate's pro se petition was frivolous and that the clerk should reject future filings related to the specific case unless signed by an attorney.
[1] A court may reject future filings from a pro se litigant related to a specific case if those filings are frivolous and the litigant has a history of meritless submissions…
[2] A court may order the Clerk to forward a copy of an opinion finding a pro se petition frivolous to the Department of Corrections for notification to the incarcerated liti…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn inmate filed a pro se habeas corpus petition seeking relief from an allegedly illegal sentence, which had been previously litigated and denied. The…
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 Abuse Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Willie James, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court seeking relief from an allegedly illegal sentence.1 We denied the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order, determining that it raised a repetitive claim addressed in a previous petition filed in this Court. See James v. McNeil, No. SC10-2045, 2011 WL 386820 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2011). However, in disposing of the petition in this case, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against James. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a).
*232James was tried, convicted, and sentenced for committing robbery in Broward County, Florida (17th Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 93-13851-CF10A). Because the trial court determined that James qualified as a habitual felony offender (HFO), on September 30, 1993, it imposed the sixty-year sentence that James is presently serving. In the decades since his criminal case became final, James has unsuccessfully used numerous vehicles in the state courts attempting to obtain relief from what he believes is an illegally enhanced sentence. However, it is patently evident from the record before this Court that James’s sixty-year sentence has been fully litigated in the appropriate courts below, to no avail for him.
Since 2007, James has filed multiple petitions with this Court seeking relief based on his illegal sentence claim. And in none of the petitions James filed in this Court, has any relief been granted to him concerning his sixty-year prison sentence.2 Because the petition filed in this case was wholly without merit, we issued an order directing James to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings related to case number 93-13851-CF10A.3 James’s response fails to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Furthermore, based on the meritless claim presented by James, we conclude that the pro se petition filed in this case is a frivolous filing submitted to this Court by a state inmate. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2010). We take notice that James has compiled a history of pro se filings that, like the instant petition, were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Willie James that are related to circuit court case number 93-13851-CF10A, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on James’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.4 Furthermore, since we have found James’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2010), to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where James is incarcerated.5
It is so ordered.
*233CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
McCUTCHEON v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2013)…conviction and sentence.”). . In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla.2011); Johnson v. Bundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla.2011); 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). . See, e.g., James, 75 So. 3d at 232; Johnson, 59 So. 3d at…
-
Clark v. Crews, 159 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 2014)…we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla.2013); James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla.2011); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla.2011); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla.2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008).…
-
Annamarie Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2013)…we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla.2013); James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla.2011); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla.2011); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla.2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2008).…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011)
- Tate v. McNEIL, 983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008)
- Grate v. State, 750 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1999)
- Lundy v. McNeil, 1 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 2009)
- Reed v. State, 36 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 2010)
- Gomez v. City of Pinecrest, 22 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 2009)