Title: Tyree Ford v. Carmine Marceno, Sheriff

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC2023-1729 
____________ 
 
TYREE FORD, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
CARMINE MARCENO, SHERIFF, 
Respondent. 
 
May 16, 2024 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Tyree Ford, a pre-trial detainee, filed a pro se “Motion for 
Mandamus Relief to Dismiss, and Release Defendant for Lack of 
Jurisdiction and Delegations of Authority by the State,” which we 
treated as a petition for writ of mandamus.  We denied the petition, 
retained jurisdiction, and directed Ford to show cause why he 
should not be sanctioned for his repeated misuse of our limited 
resources.  Ford v. Marceno, No. SC2023-1729, 2024 WL 666682 
(Fla. Feb. 19, 2024); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s 
Motion).  Ford responded to our show cause order.  We now find 
 
- 2 - 
that Ford has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, 
and we sanction him as set forth below. 
 
Ford, who is a pre-trial detainee with pending charges against 
him in Twentieth Judicial Circuit (Lee County) case numbers 
362022CF000421000ACH and 362022CF014474000ACH, began 
filing petitions with this Court in 2022 pertaining to his two lower 
court cases.  We have never granted the relief sought in any of 
Ford’s filings, which have all been denied, dismissed, or transferred 
to another court for consideration; his petition in this case is no 
exception.  Ford filed the mandamus petition in this case seeking to 
compel discovery production and to challenge the trial court’s 
authority over him.  Ford admitted that he had sought this same 
relief by filing a mandamus petition in another court but without 
success.  Therefore, he raised the claim before this Court.  We 
denied the petition as successive under Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 
So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 1975), because once a petitioner seeks relief 
in a particular court by means of a petition for extraordinary writ, 
he has picked his forum and is not entitled to a second or third 
opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court.  
Furthermore, we directed Ford to show cause why he should not be 
 
- 3 - 
barred from filing any further pro se requests for relief in this 
Court.   
Ford filed a response in which he continues to assert that he 
has a legitimate cause to file petitions in this Court and that his 
cases are not frivolous.  In his response, he failed to express any 
remorse for his repeated misuse of this Court’s limited resources 
nor acknowledge the frivolous nature of his repeated filings.  Upon 
consideration of Ford’s response, we find that he has failed to show 
cause why sanctions should not be imposed.  Therefore, based on 
Ford’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 the 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, Ford will continue to burden the 
Court’s resources.  
 
- 4 - 
 
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any 
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Tyree Ford 
related to case numbers 362022CF000421000ACH and 
362022CF014474000ACH, unless such filings are signed by a 
member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by 
this Court. 
It is so ordered. 
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, 
FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. 
 
Original Proceeding – Mandamus 
 
Tyree Ford, pro se, Fort Myers, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent