Case Title: A.C. v. Dep't of Children & Families

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2023-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC22-1519 
____________ 
 
A.C., etc., 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 
Respondent. 
 
March 2, 2023 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This case is before the Court on the petition of A.C. for a writ 
of mandamus.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. 
Const. 
Petitioner has filed at least forty-three pro se petitions or 
notices with this Court since August 29, 2022.  On November 18, 
2022, we denied the instant petition, expressly retained 
jurisdiction, and ordered Petitioner to show cause why she should 
not be barred from filing further pro se requests for relief in this 
Court related to a dependency matter, circuit court case number 
- 2 - 
 
502020DP000123XXXXMB.  A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. 
SC22-1519, 2022 WL 17076781 (Fla. Nov. 18, 2022).  Despite the 
Court’s order to show cause, Petitioner continued to file countless 
meritless pleadings in this Court regarding various court matters 
pending in the lower tribunals.  Therefore, on February 2, 2023, the 
Court issued an opinion barring Petitioner from filing pro se 
pleadings in the Court regarding the dependency matter.  A.C. v. 
Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1519, 2023 WL 1457573 (Fla. 
Feb. 2, 2023).  The Court also ordered Petitioner to show cause why 
she should not be further sanctioned and barred from filing any 
pro se pleadings in this Court.  Petitioner filed an untimely 
response, which we strike as untimely.  Moreover, Petitioner has 
continued to file meritless pleadings in the Court.  Accordingly, we 
now find that Petitioner has failed to show cause why she should 
not be sanctioned, and we outline those sanctions below. 
Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of filing meritless pro se 
requests for relief in this Court.  Including the petition in the 
instant case, Petitioner has filed forty-three pro se petitions or 
- 3 - 
 
notices with this Court since August 29, 2022.1  To date, the Court 
has disposed of all of Petitioner’s cases, including five petitions that 
Petitioner voluntarily dismissed.  This Court has never granted 
Petitioner the relief sought in any of her filings.  Petitioner’s 
petitions and notices were all denied or dismissed, except for her 
five most recent petitions, which are still pending. 
Therefore, based on Petitioner’s extensive history of filing pro 
se petitions and requests for relief that were meritless or otherwise 
inappropriate for this Court’s review, we now find that she has 
abused this Court’s limited judicial resources.  See Pettway v. 
McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008) (explaining that this Court 
has previously “exercised the inherent judicial authority to sanction 
an abusive litigant” and that “[o]ne justification for such a sanction 
lies in the protection of the rights of others to have the Court 
conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings”).  If no action is 
taken, Petitioner will continue to burden this Court’s resources. 
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any 
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner 
 
1.  See A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1591, 2023 
WL 1457573 (Fla. Feb. 2, 2023); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. 
SC22-1775 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2023) (mandamus petition denied). 
- 4 - 
 
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The 
Florida Bar. 
Additionally, any pending motions or requests for relief are all 
hereby denied.  No motion for rehearing or clarification will be 
entertained by this Court. 
It is so ordered. 
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL, 
GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Mandamus 
 
A.C., pro se, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Andrew Feigenbaum of the Florida Department of Children and 
Families, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
for Respondent