Case Title: Gus Lanier v. State Of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC07-1568

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
________________________ 
 
Nos. SC07-1568, SC07-1629, SC07-1839 & SC07-2062 
________________________ 
 
GUS LANIER,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
 
GUS LANIER,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
 
GUS LANIER,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
 
GUS LANIER,  
Petitioner, 
 
 
- 2 - 
vs. 
 
ROBERT L. PARKER, etc., 
Respondent. 
 
[March 27, 2008] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Gus Lanier filed a petition for writ of prohibition (Lanier v. State, Case No. 
SC07-1568), petition for writ habeas corpus (Lanier v. Parker, Case No. SC07-
2062), and petitions for writs of mandamus (Lanier v. State, Case No. SC07-1629; 
Lanier v. State, Case No. SC07-1839), which were consolidated for purposes of 
consideration and dismissed by the Court on December 14, 2007.  Because of his 
numerous meritless petitions filed in this Court, we retained jurisdiction and 
ordered Lanier on that date to show cause why this Court should not find that he 
has abused the legal system process and impose upon him a sanction for such 
abuse, 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 him unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar.  We 
now sanction Lanier. 
Petitioner had previously been sanctioned by the Court for abuse of the 
judicial process, see Lanier v. State, 908 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2005), Lanier v. State, 
No. SC02-2139 (Fla. Oct. 25, 2004) (unpublished).  Subsequent to the sanction in 
2005, and not including the instant cases, Lanier initiated no fewer than thirteen 
 
- 3 - 
separate proceedings in this Court in approximately two and a half years.  The 
Court has never granted Lanier the relief he has requested in any of these 
proceedings.  See Lanier v. Parker, No. SC06-2256 (Fla. Nov. 28, 2006) 
(transferring petition for writ of habeas corpus); Lanier v. Parker, No. SC07-1247 
(Fla. July 11, 2007) (same); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1439 (Fla. Aug. 16, 2007) 
(transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1483 (Fla. 
Aug. 9, 2007) (transferring appeal); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1496 (Fla. Aug. 16, 
2007) (transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1524 
(Fla. Aug. 15, 2007) (dismissing discretionary review proceeding for lack of 
jurisdiction); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1597 (Fla. Aug. 24, 2007) (dismissing 
appeal for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. McDonough, No. SC07-1703 (Fla. Oct. 
16, 2007) (transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-
1761 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. 
State, No. SC07-1764 (Fla. Oct. 17, 2007) (same); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1843 
(Fla. Oct. 3, 2007) (transferring appeal); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-1969 (Fla. Oct. 
22, 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. State, No. SC07-
2110 (Fla. Nov. 9, 2007) (same).  The Court also notes that currently pending are 
two petitions from Lanier seeking to invoke this Court’s conflict jurisdiction 
(Lanier v. State, Case No. SC07-1970; Lanier v. State, Case No. SC07-1971). 
 
- 4 - 
 
Lanier has not responded to this Court’s order to show cause and therefore 
has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.  He did, however, file a 
new petition for writ of habeas corpus, on January 11, 2008, seeking to raise a 
pretrial challenge concerning new criminal charges pending against him (Lanier v. 
Parker, Case No. SC08-23).  This Court and the United States Supreme Court 
have, when deemed necessary, exercised the inherent judicial authority to sanction 
an abusive litigant.  See, e.g., Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 
U.S. 1, 3 (1992); In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 180 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 
U.S. 180, 184 (1989); May v. Barthet, 934 So. 2d 1184, 1187 (Fla. 2006); Jean v. 
State, 906 So. 2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 2005); Armstead v. State, 817 So. 2d 841, 
842-843 (Fla. 2002); Peterson v. State, 817 So. 2d 838, 840-41 (Fla. 2002); 
Jackson v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398, 400-02 (Fla. 2001); Rivera v. State, 
728 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 1998); Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216, 1217 
(Fla.1995).  One justification for such a sanction lies in the protection of the rights 
of others to timely review of their legitimate filings. See Martin, 506 U.S. at 3 
(imposing sanction where petitioner’s filings for certiorari review had a deleterious 
effect on the Court’s fair allocation of judicial resources); see also Peterson, 817 
So. 2d at 840 (“This Court has a responsibility to ensure every citizen's right of 
access to the courts. . . .  A limitation on [the petitioner’s] ability to file would 
further the constitutional right to access for other litigants because it would permit 
 
- 5 - 
this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims 
filed by others.”).  As noted by the United States Supreme Court, “[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.  A part of the Court’s 
responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the 
interests of justice.”  In re McDonald, 489 U.S. at 184. 
Upon a thorough review of Lanier’s filings with this Court, we conclude that 
petitioner’s repetitive filings raising criminal pretrial issues has hindered the ability 
of this Court to resolve those matters that are properly before the Court.  Sanctions 
are merited on this record.  Accordingly, in order to preserve the right of access for 
all litigants and promote the interests of justice, the Clerk of this Court is hereby 
instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, 
or other filings submitted by Gus Lanier, unless signed by a member in good 
standing of The Florida Bar.  Under the sanction herein imposed, Lanier is not 
wholesale being denied access to the courts.  He may petition the Court through the 
assistance of counsel whenever such counsel determines that the proceeding may 
have merit and can be filed in good faith.  However, Lanier’s abusive filings must 
immediately cease.  Further, if Gus Lanier continues to abuse the processes of this 
Court, he may be subject to further contempt proceedings or other appropriate 
sanctions.  
 
- 6 - 
 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
Four Cases: 
 
Original Proceeding – Prohibition 
Two Original Proceedings – Mandamus  
And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus 
 
Gus Lanier, pro se, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner