Title: Annemarie Riethmiller v. William Riethmiller
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC12-1183
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 5, 2013

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-1183 
____________ 
 
ANNAMARIE RIETHMILLER  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
WILLIAM RIETHMILLER  
Respondent. 
 
[December 5, 2013] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This case is before the Court on the petition of Annamarie Riethmiller for a 
writ of mandamus.1
                                         
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. 
  We previously denied the petition and retained jurisdiction to 
pursue sanctions against Riethmiller.  Due to her numerous meritless and 
inappropriate filings in this Court pertaining to her dissolution of marriage 
proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee 
 
 
- 2 - 
County,2 Riethmiller was directed to show cause why she should not be barred 
from filing in this Court any future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for 
relief.3
 
After considering Riethmiller’s response, we conclude that it fails to show 
cause why she should not be sanctioned.  Riethmiller has compiled a history of pro 
se filings in this Court that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review.  Her 
filings, in part, also reveal a pattern of instituting proceedings and then failing to 
properly pursue them.   
  Riethmiller has filed a response to the order to show cause.   
                                         
2.  Since 2010, Petitioner Riethmiller has initiated numerous proceedings in 
this Court pertaining to her divorce proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth 
Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County, Florida.  See Riethmiller v. 
Riethmiller, 2012 WL 1859725 (Fla. May 15, 2012) (table) (mandamus petition 
dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 77 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 2011) (table) (review 
dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 69 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 2011) (table) 
(prohibition petition denied); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 67 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2011) 
(table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 67 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2011) 
(table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 67 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2011) 
(table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 67 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2011) 
(table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 67 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2011) 
(table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 67 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2011) 
(table) (mandamus petition denied); Riethmiller v. Fabisiak, 64 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 
2011) (table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 60 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 
2011) (table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 60 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 
2011) (table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 57 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 
2011) (table) (review dismissed); Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 48 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 
2010) (table) (review dismissed). 
 
 
3.  See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (stating that a court 
must first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctioning a 
litigant and prohibiting litigant from future pro se filings). 
 
- 3 - 
 
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future 
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Annamarie 
Riethmiller pertaining to her dissolution of marriage proceedings in the Circuit 
Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County (case number 
2009-DR-10430), unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of 
The Florida Bar.  Counsel may file on Riethmiller’s behalf if counsel determines 
that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.4
 
It is so ordered.  
   
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED.   
 
Original Proceedings – Mandamus 
 
Annamarie Riethmiller, pro se, Bradenton, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
                                         
 
4.  In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants 
whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce 
judicial resources of this Court.  See, e.g., McCutcheon v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 
(Fla. 2013); James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 
3d 1080 (Fla. 2011); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 
987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008).