Opinion
Case No. SC06-267.
November 26, 2007.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 1D04-2137.
Petitioner's "Petition to Inhibit Jurisdiction From this Very Supreme Court of Injustice" is hereby denied.
Petitioner's motion for rehearing is hereby denied.
Julio Mora has previously filed 23 other cases in this Court, and of these, thirteen have been filed in just the past four years. See Mora v. State, 961 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2007) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. State, 961 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2007) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. McDonough, 962 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2007) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Mora v. State, 946 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2006) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed);Mora v. Williams, 946 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2006) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Mora v. McDonough, 946 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2006) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed); Mora v. McDonough, 925 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2006) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed);Mora v. State, 918 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2005) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Mora v. Crosby, 904 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2005) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Mora v. Crosby, 898 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2005) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Mora v. State, 898 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2005) (table) (petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction denied); Mora v. Crosby, 889 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2004) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. State, 881 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2004) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. Crosby, 873 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2004) (table) (habeas corpus petition denied on the merits); Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2002) (affirming Petitioner's convictions, but vacating and remanding sentences); Mora v. State, 814 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2002) (table) (mandamus petition denied without prejudice); Mora v. State, 727 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1999) (table) (mandamus petition stricken); Mora v. State, 717 So. 2d 535 (table) (Fla. Mar. 27, 1998) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. State, 717 So. 2d 535 (Fla. Mar. 24, 1998) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed without prejudice);Mora v. State, No. 91,456 (Fla. Nov. 5, 1997) (transferred); Mora v. State, 699 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1997) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. Aarp Home Indem. Co., 683 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1996) (table) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); Mora v. Sole-Chakra, 618 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1993) (table) (petition for review dismissed).
Of the cases cited above, the only time the Petitioner was afforded relief was on direct appeal from his death sentence, at which time, he was represented by counsel. In the present case, Mora has filed pleadings containing scandalous and obscene language. We now pursue sanctions.
Because Mora has abused the processes of this Court with his numerous pro se filings, the Court finds that a limitation on his ability to initiate any further pro se proceedings in this Court may be necessary at this time in order to further the constitutional right of access of other litigants in that it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims filed by others.See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (noting that "[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources"); see also Tasse v. Simpson, 842 So. 2d 793, 796-97 (Fla. 2003). On occasion, this Court has sanctioned individuals who have abused this Court's time and resources by filing multiple frivolous pro se petitions. See Jackson v. Florida Dep't of Corrs., 790 So. 2d 398, 402 (Fla. 2001). In Jackson, the Court refused to accept any further filings from a litigious petitioner unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar. In so ruling, the Court noted that such action did not violate the constitutional right of access to the courts:
While we are cognizant of the access to courts implications of refusing to accept any more petitions from Jackson unless they are signed by an attorney, we are also concerned that failure to impose this sanction will handicap this Court's ability to timely review the many other petitions filed by inmates and other petitioners who have not abused the system. While on the one hand, we would like to say that the courts should never limit a person's ability to access the courts, on the other hand, there are a handful of petitioners who have so abused the system that failure to restrain them could deny or delay the right of access to courts for the rest of the populace.
Id. at 401. Like the petitioner in Jackson, Mora has abused the processes of this Court with his constant meritless and abusive filings. This Court is now forced to limit Mora's ability to monopolize this Court's time. Accordingly, this Court hereby issues the following order to show cause:
TO: JULIO MORA
It appears to the Court that you have abused the legal system by filing an excessive number of frivolous, mertiless, or facially insufficient filings in this Court. Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before December 11, 2007, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system, including, but not limited to directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or other filings submitted to this Court by you unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.