Title: Jackson v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-1531 
____________ 
 
MARK C. JACKSON, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
June 13, 2019 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Mark C. Jackson—a pro se litigant—filed a petition to invoke this Court’s 
discretionary jurisdiction.  By order dated April 11, 2019, we denied Jackson’s 
petition but expressly reserved jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against 
him.  Jackson v. State, No. SC18-1531, 2019 WL 1575238 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2019); 
see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). 
 
While his case was pending in this Court, Jackson filed a litany of motions 
that were frivolous, devoid of merit, or sought relief previously denied in case 
numbers SC12-367 and SC17-1628.  Because of his filing history, Jackson was 
ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from submitting further pro 
 
- 2 - 
se documents in this Court.  See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) 
(requiring that a litigant be provided notice and an opportunity to respond before 
sanctions are imposed).  Jackson has now filed a response to the Court’s order.  
 
We conclude that Jackson has failed to show cause why he should not be 
sanctioned.  Through his persistent filing of nonmeritorious requests for relief, 
Jackson has abused the judicial process.  Jackson’s response neglected to provide 
any justification for this abuse or to express remorse for his repeated misuse of the 
Court’s resources.  We are therefore convinced that, if not restrained, Jackson will 
continue to burden this Court with frivolous and meritless filings, diverting finite 
judicial resources from other litigants.  See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 
(Fla. 2008). 
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future 
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, letters, or other requests for relief 
submitted by Mark C. Jackson, unless such filings are signed by a member in good 
standing of The Florida Bar.1  Counsel may file on Jackson’s behalf if counsel 
determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith. 
                                          
 
 
1.  In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other pro se 
litigants who have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial 
resources of this Court.  See, e.g., Wetzel v. Travelers Cos., Inc., 267 So. 3d 978 
(Fla. 2019); Shirah v. State, 257 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018); Woodson v. State, 242 So. 
3d 315 (Fla. 2018); Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018). 
 
- 3 - 
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court. 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and 
MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.  
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – 
Constitutional Construction  
 
 
First District - Case No. 1D18-242 
 
 
(Bradford County) 
 
Mark C. Jackson, pro se, Starke, Florida,  
 
for Petitioner  
 
No appearance for Respondent