Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC2023-0907

____________

CURTIS NAIRN,

Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

December 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Nairn, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition 

for writ of prohibition with this Court seeking relief against the trial 

court. We denied the petition, retained jurisdiction, and directed 

Nairn to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his 

repeated misuse of our limited resources. Nairn v. State, No. 

SC2023-0907, 2023 WL 5959745 (Fla. Sept. 13, 2023); see Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that 

Nairn has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and 

we sanction him as set forth below.
- 2 -

Nairn was convicted of second-degree murder in the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, case 

number 062006CF008303A88810. He was sentenced to life in 

prison, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct 

appeal. See Nairn v. State, 978 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 

Since 2007, Nairn has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious

filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court related to 

his conviction and sentence. Including the petition in this case, 

Nairn has filed fifteen pro se petitions with this Court.1 The Court 

did not grant Nairn the relief sought in any of those filings; each of 

the petitions was transferred, dismissed, or denied. His petition in 

this case is no exception. Nairn sought a writ of prohibition 

directed at the circuit court judge who was presiding over his

postconviction proceedings. Because we “will generally not consider 

the repetitive petitions of persons who have abused the judicial 

processes of the lower courts such that they have been barred from 

filing certain actions there,” we dismissed the instant petition under 

1. See Nairn v. State, No. SC2023-0907, 2023 WL 5959745 

(Fla. Sept. 13, 2023).
- 3 -

Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000), and we directed 

Nairn to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any 

further pro se requests for relief in this Court.

In response, Nairn filed a “Motion to Withhold Sanction in 

Compliance With Court Order,” in which he continued to argue his 

purported entitlement to relief related to his underlying case. He 

failed to acknowledge or express any remorse for his repeated 

misuse of this Court’s limited resources nor state that he would 

abstain from further frivolous filings in this Court. Upon 

consideration of Nairn’s response, we find that he has failed to show 

cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on

Nairn’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”). It is apparent that if no action is taken, Nairn will 
- 4 -

continue to burden the Court’s resources. We further conclude that 

Nairn’s prohibition petition filed in this case is a frivolous 

proceeding brought before the Court by a state prisoner. See

§ 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). 

Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any 

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Curtis 

Nairn that are related to case number 062006CF008303A88810, 

unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The 

Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Nairn’s petition 

to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, under section 

944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2023), to forward a copy of this 

opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or 

facility in which Nairn is incarcerated. 

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 – Prohibition

Curtis Nairn, pro se, Miami, Florida,
- 5 -

for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent