Case Title: Barber v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC18-1739

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-1739 
____________ 
 
LARRY JAMES BARBER, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
April 25, 2019 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This case is before the Court on the petition of Larry James Barber for a writ 
of prohibition.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(7), Fla. Const.  Petitioner 
Barber has pro se filed fifteen petitions or notices with this Court since February 
13, 1998.  On December 19, 2018, we dismissed the instant petition, expressly 
retained jurisdiction, and ordered Barber to show cause why he should not be 
barred from filing further pro se requests for relief in this Court related to circuit 
court case number 131981CF0242300001XX.  See Barber v. State, No. SC18-
1739, 2018 WL 6720521 (Fla. Dec. 19, 2018). 
 
- 2 - 
 
We now find that Barber has failed to show cause why he should not be 
barred, and we sanction him as set forth below. 
   
In Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court (Miami-Dade County) case number 
131981CF0242300001XX, Barber was convicted of one count of robbery with a 
firearm; he was sentenced to life imprisonment on April 7, 1982.  His conviction 
and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.  Barber v. State, 438 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 
3d DCA 1983). 
 
Since February 13, 1998, Barber has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious 
filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court.  Including the petition in 
the instant case, Barber has filed fifteen pro se petitions or notices with this Court 
since February 13, 1998.1  The Court has disposed of fourteen of these filings to 
date, not including the petition in this case.  This Court has never granted Barber 
the relief sought in any of his filings here.  Each of the fourteen petitions and 
notices was denied, dismissed, or transferred to another court for consideration; his 
petition in this case is no exception. 
 
Barber filed the instant petition for writ of prohibition with this Court on 
October 16, 2018.  The Court dismissed the petition on December 19, 2018, 
pursuant to Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000).  In doing so, we 
                                          
 
 
1.  See Barber v. State, No. SC18-1739, 2018 WL 6720521 (Fla. Dec. 19, 
2018). 
 
- 3 - 
expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Barber.  On the 
same day, we ordered Barber to show cause why the Clerk of this Court should not 
be directed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or 
other filings submitted to this Court by him related to case number 
131981CF0242300001XX.  This Court also directed Barber to show cause why, 
pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Court’s 
findings should not be forwarded to the appropriate institution for disciplinary 
procedures pursuant to the rules of the Florida Department of Corrections. 
 
Upon consideration of Barber’s response, we find that his arguments are 
without merit and that he has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be 
imposed.  Therefore, based on Barber’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 he 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, Barber will continue to burden this 
Court’s resources.  We further conclude that Barber’s prohibition petition filed in 
 
- 4 - 
this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner.  
See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). 
 
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings 
or other requests for relief submitted by Larry James Barber that are related to case 
number 131981CF0242300001XX, unless such filings are signed by a member in 
good standing of The Florida Bar.  Furthermore, because we have found Barber’s 
petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 
944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2018), to forward a copy of this opinion to the 
Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or facility in which Barber is 
incarcerated. 
 
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by this Court. 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and 
MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Prohibition 
 
Larry James Barber, pro se, Crawfordville, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent