Title: Gus Lanier, A/K/A James Graham
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC04-1100
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 2005

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
_____________ 
 
No. SC04-1100 
_____________ 
 
 
GUS LANIER, a/k/a JAMES GRAHAM, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
 
[June 30, 2005] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus, dismissed by the Court as 
unauthorized on November 1, 2004, is hereby reinstated solely for the purpose of 
issuing the instant sanction opinion.  We have jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § 3(b)(8), 
Fla. Const. 
By order of the Court dated November 1, 2004, this case was dismissed as 
unauthorized, pursuant to Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003).  The Court 
noted that this was the forty-eighth pro se case initiated by petitioner in the Court 
since 2001.  The Court further noted that it has never granted petitioner the relief 
 
 
- 2 -
he has requested in any of the prior proceedings.  See Lanier v. Sankel, No. SC02-
1004 (Fla. Jan. 14, 2005) (transferring petition for writ of mandamus); Lanier v. 
State, 869 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Feb. 23, 2004) (No. SC03-2381) (dismissing 
discretionary review proceeding for lack of jurisdiction); Lanier v. State, 845 So. 
2d 891 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2003) (No. SC03-583) (same); Lanier v. County Department 
of Corrections, 845 So. 2d 891 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2003) (No. SC03-582) (same); Lanier 
v. County Department of Corrections, 845 So. 2d 891 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2003) (No. 
SC03-581) (same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 14, 2002) (No. 
SC02-1002) (same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 14, 2002) (No. 
SC02-1001) (same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 14, 2002) (No. 
SC02-1000) (same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 14, 2002) (No. 
SC02-999) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 15, 2002) (No. 
SC02-992) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 15, 2002) (No. 
SC02-990) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 15, 2002) (No. 
SC02-989) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 15, 2002) (No. 
SC02-988) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 15, 2002) (No. 
SC02-987) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 10, 2002) (No. 
SC02-943) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 10, 2002) (No. 
SC02-942) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 10, 2002) (No. 
SC02-939) (same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 10, 2002) (No. 
 
 
- 3 -
SC02-938) (same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 8, 2002) (No. SC02-
918) (same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 8, 2002) (No. SC02-917) 
(same); Lanier v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 8, 2002) (No. SC02-916) 
(same); Lanier v. State, 819 So. 2d 136 (Fla. May 8, 2002) (No. SC02-915) (same); 
Lanier v. State, 869 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Feb. 20, 2004) (No. SC03-2364) (dismissing 
extraordinary writ proceeding on authority of Logan); Lanier v. State, 861 So. 2d 
430 (Fla. Nov. 18, 2003) (No. SC03-744) (same); Lanier v. State, 861 So. 2d 430 
(Fla. Nov. 18, 2003) (No. SC03-743) (same); Lanier v. State, 861 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 
Nov. 18, 2003) (No. SC03-742) (same); Lanier v. State, 861 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Nov. 
18, 2003) (No. SC03-741) (same); Lanier v. State, 861 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Nov. 18, 
2003) (No. SC03-740) (same); Lanier v. State, 861 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Nov. 17, 2003) 
(No. SC03-739) (same); Lanier v. DeMilio, 848 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. June 17, 2003) 
(No. SC02-1839) (same); Lanier v. Kelly, 848 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. June 17, 2003) 
(No. SC02-1006) (same); Lanier v. Rundle, 848 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. June 17, 2003) 
(No. SC02-1005) (same); Lanier v. State, 847 So. 2d 977 (Fla. June 11, 2003) (No. 
SC02-945) (same); Lanier v. State, 847 So. 2d 977 (Fla. June 11, 2003) (No. 
SC02-909) (same); Lanier v. State, 847 So. 2d 977 (Fla. June 11, 2003) (No. 
SC02-908) (same); Lanier v. State, 847 So. 2d 977 (Fla. June 11, 2003) (No. 
SC02-907) (same); Lanier v. State, 847 So. 2d 977 (Fla. June 11, 2003) (No. 
SC02-906) (same); Lanier v. State, No. SC03-1508 (Fla. Sept. 8, 2003) 
 
 
- 4 -
(transferring appeal to Third District Court of Appeal); Lanier v. Cambridge, 842 
So. 2d 845 (Fla. Mar. 28, 2003) (No. SC02-1846) (dismissing discretionary review 
proceeding as a sanction for petitioner’s failure to timely file a jurisdictional brief); 
Lanier v. Spears, 842 So. 2d 845 (Fla. Mar. 28, 2003) (No. SC02-1843) (same); 
Lanier v. Williams, 842 So. 2d 845 (Fla. Mar. 28, 2003) (No. SC02-1842) (same); 
Lanier v. Weston, 864 So. 2d 400 (Fla. Dec. 11, 2003) (No. SC02-1841) (same); 
Lanier v. State, 842 So. 2d 845 (Fla. Mar. 28, 2003) (No. SC02-1838) (same); 
Lanier v. State, 833 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2002) (No. SC02-2137) (dismissing 
appeal as having been untimely filed); Lanier v. State, No. SC02-2139 (Fla. Oct. 
16, 2002) (transferring petition for writ of habeas corpus); Lanier v. State, No. 
SC02-1435 (Fla. July 3, 2002) (same); Lanier v. Echarte, No. SC01-2772 (Fla. Jan. 
22, 2002) (same). 
 
Because petitioner has abused the processes of this Court with his numerous 
filings, the Court found in its dismissal order that a limitation on petitioner’s ability 
to initiate any further pro se proceedings in this Court may be necessary in order to 
further the constitutional right of access of other litigants, in that it would permit 
the Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims 
filed by others.  See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (noting that 
“[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or 
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources”).  
 
 
- 5 -
Accordingly, in the November 1, 2004, order of dismissal, petitioner was directed 
to show cause why this Court should not impose a sanction upon him for his 
litigiousness, such as directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future 
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by him unless 
signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. 
 
On November 19, 2004, petitioner responded to the Court’s order.  
Petitioner did address why he feels justified in having filed his numerous petitions 
and notices to invoke but fails to provide any legal basis whatsoever as to why 
those petitions were valid.  All of petitioner’s filings related to his criminal charges 
and trial, which is still pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial 
Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida.  The Court will not allow its judicial 
processes to be misused by petitioner in continuing to file meritless petitions. 
 
Petitioner is advised that until such time as his current criminal proceedings 
have been concluded, any appeal becomes final, and his counsel withdraws, the 
Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, 
petitions, motions, documents, or filings submitted by petitioner unless they are 
signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  At such time, petitioner 
must provide to the Court notification of such withdrawal, signed by former 
counsel, indicating that petitioner is no longer represented by an attorney and 
seeking leave to file pro se any postconviction papers.  Any letters, documents, 
 
 
- 6 -
pleadings, or other items submitted in violation of this order will automatically be 
placed in an inactive file with no further action taken.  This order shall not be 
construed to prohibit petitioner from instituting pro se postconviction proceedings 
should petitioner be convicted in his underlying criminal case and that conviction 
become final. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
Original Proceedings – Mandamus 
 
Gus Lanier, pro se, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent