JAMES NELSON, PETITIONER,

v.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2013-03-21

No. SC11-2482

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

110 So. 3d 890 Florida Supreme Court (2013) Positive Treatment

Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The Court held that the inmate's pro se petition was frivolous and imposed sanctions, prohibiting future pro se filings related to his criminal case unless signed by an attorney.

Headnotes

[1] A pro se litigant must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested to be entitled to a writ of mandamus.

[2] A court may impose sanctions, including prohibiting future pro se filings, against a litigant who has engaged in a pattern of abusing the judicial process.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Facts & Procedural History

An inmate, James Nelson, filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus which the Court denied as meritless. Nelson has a history of filing numerous f…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Abuse Of Judicial Process Show Cause Order Sanctions For Frivolous Filings Frivolous Litigation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

James Nelson, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus with this Court.1 We denied the petition in this case by way of an unpublished order, determining that Nelson had failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, pursuant to Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000).2 In disposing of the petition in this case, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Nelson.3 See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410(a).

Nelson was convicted of attempted murder, among other crimes, in Duval County, Florida (circuit court case number 98-14227), and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, including a fifty-five-year term. Nelson appealed his convictions and sentences to the First District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgments of guilt and the sentences imposed. Nelson v. State, 816 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Since his criminal convictions and sentences became final, Nelson has filed sixteen cases in this Court,4 a number of which sought relief in connection with his convictions and sentences in circuit court case number 98-14227. These filings consisted of extraordinary writ petitions as well as filings seeking to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction.5 More*891over, Nelson has filed voluminous amounts of paperwork in various cases, and this Court has stricken many of his pleadings as untimely, as unauthorized, or for failure to comply with the appropriate rules. Nelson has not received any relief from this Court in connection with any of the petitions he has filed here. Nelson’s filings were either devoid of merit or inappropriate for review in this Court.

Because the petition filed in this case was without merit, and because Nelson has submitted multiple other meritless filings seeking relief relating to his criminal case, we issued an order directing Nelson to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se filings in this Court related to circuit court ease number 98-14227.6 After considering Nelson’s response to the order to show cause, we conclude that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. We further conclude that Nelson’s mandamus petition in the instant case (including his supplement), which consists of over ninety pages of rambling allegations, is a frivolous proceeding brought to this Court by a prisoner. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2012).

Accordingly, in light of Nelson’s ongoing pattern of abuse of the judicial process, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by James Nelson that are related to circuit court case number 98-14227, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Nelson’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.7 Furthermore, since we have found Nelson’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Nelson is incarcerated.8

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

. See Nelson v. Tucker, 90 So.3d 272 (No. SCI 1-2482) (Fla.2012) (table) (mandamus pe*891tition — denied); Nelson v. State, 34 So.3d 2 (No. SC09-1774) (Fla.2010) (table) (mandamus petition — dismissed); Nelson v. McNeil, 992 So.2d 820 (No. SC08-1439) (Fla.2008) (table) (habeas corpus petition — dismissed); Nelson v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 975 So.2d 1134 (No. SC07-280) (Fla.2008) (table) (mandamus petition — denied); see also Nelson v. State, 99 So.3d 944 (No. SC12-134) (Fla.2012) (table) (notice to invoke the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction — review denied); Nelson v. State, 45 So.3d 461 (No. SC10-1728) (Fla.2010) (table) (notice to invoke the Court's discretionary jurisdiction — dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Nelson v. State, 44 So.3d 107 (No. SC 10-1605) (Fla.2010) (table) (notice to invoke the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction— dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Nelson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 194 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)

…mise that his conviction and resulting sentence were unlawful. Nelson has been prohibited from further pro se .filings in the Florida Supreme Court relating to his 1998 case due to his numerous frivolous filings in that' court. See Nelson v. Crews, 110 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2013). And, after reviewing Nelson’s frivolous filings in this appeal, we issued a Spencer2 order directing him to show cause why we should not impose a similar sanction based on his history of unsuccessful and frivolous post-conviction filing…
Geno L. Hawkins, Sr. v. Jones, 211 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 2017)

…y to sanction litigants who abuse the judicial process and burden its limited resources with repeated requests for relief that are either frivolous or devoid of merit. See, e.g., Green v. State, 190 So. 3d 1026, 1027-28 (Fla. 2016); Nelson v. Crews, 110 So. 3d 890, 891 (Fla. 2013). Through his persistent filing of frivolous or meritless requests for relief, Hawkins has abused the judicial process and burdened this Court’s limited judicial resources. His filings clearly indicate that he lacks any understanding…
Chadrick v. Pray, 213 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2017)

…resources. This Court has exercised its inherent authority to sanction litigants who abuse the judicial process and burden its limited resources with repeated requests for relief that are either frivolous or devoid of merit. E.g., Nelson v. Crews, 110 So. 3d 890, 891 (Fla. 2013); Green v. Tucker, 101 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 2012). Pray’s persistent filing of frivolous or meritless requests for relief is an abuse of the judicial process and has burdened this Court’s limited judicial resources. Because Pray has repe…

Authorities Cited

State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2000)
Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011)
James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)
Tate v. McNEIL, 983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008)
Nelson v. State, 816 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw