EDWARD K. WERDELL, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL D. CREWS, ETC., RESPONDENT; EDWARD K. WERDELL, PETITIONER, V. MICHAEL D. CREWS, 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 Florida Supreme Court barred an inmate who had filed 42 frivolous pro se proceedings from filing future pro se pleadings related to his criminal convictions, exercising its inherent power to protect itself from abuse of the judicial process.
The Florida Supreme Court exercised its inherent power to bar Werdell from any future pro se filings related to his criminal convictions and determined that his petitions constitute frivolous proceedings under section 944.279. The Clerk is instructed to reject future filings unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar, though counsel may file on his behalf if the proceeding has merit and can be brought in good faith.
[1] A court may exercise its inherent power to protect itself from abuse of the judicial process by barring a litigant from future pro se filings.
[2] A prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous claim or proceeding is subject to disciplinary procedures under section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
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 intelligence“we now exercise the inherent power of this Court to protect itself from abuse of the judicial process and bar Werdell from any future pro se filings related to his criminal convictions”
Establishes the court's authority and basis for imposing the filing restriction based on its inherent power.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward K. Werdell was convicted of offenses in Pinellas County in 2003 and sentenced to imprisonment. Since his convictions became final, he has initi…
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 Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Edward K. Werdell, an inmate in state custody, filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the above-styled cases.1 In 2003, Werdell was convicted of committing offenses in Pinellas County and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Over the years, Werdell has filed numerous nonmeritorious pleadings and requests for relief with the Second District Court of Appeal, and in 2009, the district court entered an order barring him from any future pro se filings pertaining to his nine criminal cases. See Werdell v. State, 16 So.3d 875, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Similarly, since Werdell’s convictions and sentences became final he has initiated forty-two proceedings pertaining to his criminal convictions in this Court.2 In *431none of Werdell’s cases that have been before this Court has any relief been afforded to him. His petitions in the instant cases were denied as procedurally barred on October 29, 2012, and he was ordered to show cause why he should not be barred from filing in this Court any future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief pertaining to his criminal convictions. He was also ordered to show cause why the Court should not determine that the petitions filed in these cases are frivolous pleadings filed by a state prisoner, under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2012) (stating a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous claim or proceeding is subject to disciplinary procedures). Werdell did not file a response to the order to show cause in either case.
Accordingly, we now exercise the inherent power of this Court to protect itself from abuse of the judicial process and bar Werdell from any future pro se filings related to his criminal convictions. We further conclude that Werdell’s petitions in these cases are frivolous proceedings initiated by a prisoner, under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2012). The Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Edward K. Werdell pertaining to Pinellas County circuit court case numbers 02-04399-CF, 02-07159-CF, 03-02914-CF, 03-09410-CF, 03-10735-CF, 03-*43212407-CF, 03-13875-CF, 03-18719-CF, and 03-18738-CF, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Wer-dell’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.3 Furthermore, since we have found the petitions in these cases to.be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2012) to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Werdell is incarcerated.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2013)
- Kuiken v. State, 16 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Werdell v. State, 16 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)