Title: Raghubir v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-825 
____________ 
 
VINODH M. RAGHUBIR, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
August 30, 2018 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This case is before the Court on the pro se petition of Vinodh Raghubir for a 
writ of mandamus.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const.  
Petitioner Raghubir has pro se filed forty-two petitions or notices with this Court 
since May 2017.  On June 11, 2018, we dismissed the instant petition, expressly 
retained jurisdiction, and ordered Raghubir to show cause why he should not be 
barred from filing further pro se requests for relief in this Court related to circuit 
and district court case numbers 482016CF001833000AOX, 
482016CF005231000AOX, 5D17-3644, and 5D17-912.  See Raghubir v. State, 
No. SC18-825, 2018 WL 2772735 (Fla. June 11, 2018).   
 
 
- 2 - 
We now find that Raghubir has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, 
and we sanction him as set forth below.   
 
In Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (Orange County) case number 16-CF-
001833, Raghubir was convicted of one count of fraudulent use of personal 
identification information and one count of organized fraud of less than $20,000; 
he was sentenced to two years on each count on August 26, 2016.  His convictions 
and sentences were per curiam affirmed on direct appeal.  Raghubir v. State, 228 
So. 3d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (table).  In Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (Orange 
County) case number 16-CF-005231, Raghubir was convicted of one count of 
organized fraud of $50,000 or more and one count of grand theft over $20,000 and 
less than $100,000; he was sentenced to four years on each count on March 13, 
2017.  Raghubir’s direct appeal of that case was dismissed by the Fifth District 
Court of Appeal on July 17, 2018.    
Since May 2017, Raghubir has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of 
meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court.  Including the petition in the 
instant case, Raghubir has filed forty-two pro se notices or petitions with this Court 
since 2017.  The Court has disposed of thirty-two of these filings to date, not 
including the petition in this case.  This Court has never granted Raghubir the relief 
sought in any of his filings here.  Each of the notices and petitions was denied, 
 
 
- 3 - 
dismissed, or transferred to another court for consideration; his petition in this case 
is no exception.1    
                                          
 
 
1.  See Raghubir v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. SC18-1206, 2018 WL 3634953 
(Fla. July 30, 2018) (transferring mandamus petition to circuit court); Raghubir v. 
Jones, No. SC18-1010, 2018 WL 3637070 (Fla. July 20, 2018) (transferring 
habeas petition to circuit court); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-894, 2018 WL 
3359710 (Fla. July 10, 2018) (denying mandamus petition); Raghubir v. State, No. 
SC18-895, 2018 WL 3342517 (Fla. July 9, 2018) (dismissing quo warranto 
petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-893, 2018 WL 3342516 (Fla. July 9, 2018) 
(dismissing quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-874, 2018 WL 
3343257 (Fla. July 9, 2018) (dismissing quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, 
No. SC18-873, 2018 WL 3342513 (Fla. July 9, 2018) (dismissing quo warranto 
petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-871, 2018 WL 3342506 (Fla. July 9, 2018) 
(dismissing quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-870, 2018 WL 
3323499 (Fla. July 6, 2018) (dismissing quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, 
No. SC18-824, 2018 WL 3323453 (Fla. July 6, 2018) (dismissing quo warranto 
petition); Raghubir v. State, No SC18-823, 2018 WL 3323886 (Fla. July 6, 2018) 
(dismissing quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-918, 2018 WL 
3239288 (Fla. July 3, 2018) (denying prohibition petition); Raghubir v. State, No. 
SC18-1044, 2018 WL 3207130 (Fla. June 29, 2018) (dismissing petition seeking 
belated discretionary review for lack of jurisdiction); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-
837, 2018 WL 3159064 (Fla. June 27, 2018) (denying quo warranto petition); 
Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-838, 2018 WL 3159167 (Fla. June 27, 2018) 
(dismissing quo warranto petition as facially insufficient); Raghubir v. State, No. 
SC18-868, 2018 WL 3135192 (Fla. June 25, 2018) (denying prohibition petition); 
Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-840, 2018 WL 3013791 (Fla. June 15, 2018) 
(transferring quo warranto petition to the circuit court); Raghubir v. State, No. 
SC18-783, 2018 WL 2976026 (Fla. June 14, 2018) (dismissing quo warranto 
petition as facially insufficient); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-712, 2018 WL 
2427620 (Fla. May 30, 2018) (denying quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, 
No. SC18-713, 2018 WL 2427621 (Fla. May 30, 2018) (dismissing mandamus 
petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-716, 2018 WL 2427623 (Fla. May 30, 
2018) (denying quo warranto petition); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-526, 2018 WL 
2318094 (Fla. May 22, 2018) (denying mandamus petition in part, and dismissing 
petition in part for lack of jurisdiction); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-704, 2018 
WL 2324303 (Fla. May 22, 2018) (denying prohibition petition); Raghubir v. 
State, No. SC18-711, 2018 WL 2230478 (Fla. May 16, 2018) (transferring quo 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
Raghubir filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus with this Court on 
May 22, 2018.  In it, Raghubir argued that the circuit court had been deceived and 
entered a fraudulent order.  Because Raghubir had raised the same claim in 
Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-714 (Fla. May 16, 2018), in which the petition was 
transferred to the district court, on June 11, 2018, we dismissed the petition and 
expressly retained jurisdiction to consider the imposition of sanctions.  In 
accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), we ordered Raghubir 
to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se requests for 
relief.   
                                                                                                                                        
warranto petition to circuit court); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-714, 2018 WL 
2230720 (Fla. May 16, 2018) (transferring mandamus petition to the district court 
of appeal for consideration as a notice of appeal); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-
705, 2018 WL 2192456 (Fla. May 14, 2018) (transferring mandamus petition to 
the district court of appeal for consideration in the context of pending case number 
5D17-912); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-599, 2018 WL 1877778 (Fla. Apr. 19, 
2018) (dismissing notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction for lack of 
jurisdiction); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-252, 2018 WL 1151801 (Fla. Mar. 5, 
2018) (transferring prohibition petition to the district court of appeal for 
consideration in the context of pending case number 5D17-912); Raghubir v. State, 
No. SC18-228, 2018 WL 818074 (Fla. Feb. 12, 2018) (dismissing notice to invoke 
discretionary jurisdiction for lack of jurisdiction); Raghubir v. State, No. SC18-
234, 2018 WL 824220 (Fla. Feb. 12, 2018) (dismissing notice to invoke 
discretionary jurisdiction for lack of jurisdiction); Raghubir v. Jones, No. SC17-
893, 2017 WL 2481489 (Fla. June 8, 2017) (transferring habeas corpus petition to 
the district court of appeal for consideration in the context of case numbers 5D16-
3298 and 5D17-912).   
 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
 
Raghubir filed a response to this Court’s order and a “Motion to Recuse 
Panel of Judges or Disqualify for All Cases Stemming from and Including 
2016CF1833 and 2016CF5231.”  In his response, Raghubir claims that in order to 
determine that his pro se filings are meritless, this Court must address the merits of 
his claims and make relevant findings.  Raghubir further claims that his cases are 
of great public importance, and restates the challenges to his convictions that he 
has raised numerous times before this Court.  In his motion, Raghubir states that 
his pleadings clearly demonstrate fraud, deceit, collusion, and crimes committed by 
government actors.  He further states that there is a clear conspiracy to interfere 
with his civil rights and that the courts have subverted impartiality and due 
process.  Neither of Raghubir’s filings contain any justification for his continued 
abuse of this Court’s limited resources by filing numerous meritless pro se notices 
and petitions.  
Therefore, based on Raghubir’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 
 
 
- 6 - 
legitimate filings”).  If no action is taken, Raghubir 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 Vinodh Raghubir related to circuit and 
district court case numbers 482016CF001833000AOX, 
482016CF005231000AOX, 5D17-3644, and 5D17-912, unless such filings are 
signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  Henceforth, Raghubir 
may only petition this Court through the assistance of counsel whenever such 
counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good 
faith.   
Raghubir’s “Motion to Recuse Panel of Judges or Disqualify for All Cases 
Stemming from and Including 2016CF1833 and 2016CF5231” is hereby denied.  
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by this Court. 
It is so ordered.  
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Mandamus 
 
Vinodh M. Raghubir, pro se, Cross City, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent