Title: Green v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC15-1473
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 10, 2016

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC15-1473 
____________ 
 
TOMMY L. GREEN, SR.,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
[March 10, 2016] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Tommy L. Green, Sr., an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition for 
writ of mandamus with this Court.1  His petition in this case is the twenty-third 
extraordinary writ petition or notice he has filed with this Court since 2011.  We 
denied Green’s petition in this case and expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue 
possible sanctions against him based upon the volume of his meritless and 
inappropriate filings.  Green v. State, No. SC15-1473 (Fla. Order Filed Nov. 11, 
2015) (order denying mandamus relief and directing Green to show cause why pro 
                                          
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 2 - 
se filing restrictions should not be imposed); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) 
(Sanctions; Court’s Motion). 
 
Green was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and 
for Sumter County, Florida, of multiple criminal offenses including aggravated 
assault and cocaine possession.  He was sentenced in April 2011 to fifteen years in 
prison.  On January 20, 2012, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Green’s 
convictions and sentences.  See Green v. State, 83 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).   
Green began filing with this Court in 2011.  Since that time, he has filed 
twenty-three extraordinary writ petitions or notices.2  All of his filings have 
                                          
 
 
2.  See Green v. Fla. Comm’n on Ethics, Case No. SC15-1462 (Fla. Oct. 15, 
2015) (mandamus petition dismissed); Green v. State, Case No. SC15-1427 (Fla. 
Oct. 15, 2015) (mandamus petition denied); Green v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 
SC15-1392 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2015) (mandamus petition denied); Green v. Fla. Dep’t 
of Corr., Case No. SC15-1378 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2015) (mandamus petition denied); 
Green v. State, Case No. SC15-1213 (Fla. Sept. 10, 2015) (mandamus petition 
dismissed); Green v. State, Case No. SC14-2513 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2015) (mandamus 
petition transferred to circuit court); Green v. State, 171 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 2015) 
(table) (mandamus petition denied); Green v. State, 160 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014) 
(table) (all writs petition dismissed); Green v. State, 151 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. 2014) 
(table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Green v. State, 143 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2014) 
(table) (mandamus petition denied); Green v. Crews, 139 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 2014) 
(table) (habeas petition denied); Green v. State, 139 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 2014) (table) 
(mandamus petition dismissed); Green v. State, 139 So. 3d 297 (Fla. 2014) (table) 
(notice dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Green v. City of Wildwood, Fla., 134 
So. 3d 447 (Fla. 2014) (table) (notice Court declined to accept jurisdiction); Green 
v. Crews, 130 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2013) (table) (notice dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction); Green v. City of Wildwood Police Dep’t, 105 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 2012) 
(table) (notice dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Green v. State, 99 So. 3d 943 
(Fla. 2012) (table) (notice Court declined to accept jurisdiction); Green v. City of 
Wildwood Police Dep’t, Case No. SC12-790 (Fla. May 8, 2012) (prohibition 
 
 
- 3 - 
pertained to his convictions and sentences in circuit court case number 2011-CF-
182, and have been frivolous, devoid of merit, or inappropriate for consideration 
by this Court.  We have never granted Green the relief sought by him in any of his 
filings. 
 
Green’s mandamus petition in this case simply continues his pattern of filing 
frivolous and meritless pro se requests for relief.  In it, Green sought to compel the 
Fifth District Court of Appeal to accept his filings.  The petition did not satisfy the 
basic requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.  See Huffman v. State, 
813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (“In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the 
petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must 
have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner 
must have no other adequate remedy available.”).  We denied the petition and, in 
accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), directed Green to 
show cause why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se requests for 
relief and referred to the Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action 
pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes.   
                                          
 
petition transferred to district court); Green v. Greene et al., Case No. SC12-786 
(Fla. May 8, 2012) (prohibition petition transferred to district court); Green v. 
State, 114 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2012) (table) (notice dismissed as duplicative); Green v. 
Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 86 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 2012) (table) (notice dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction); Green v. State, 77 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2011) (table) (mandamus petition 
denied). 
 
 
- 4 - 
Green filed a response to the order to show cause in which he reasserted the 
same attacks on the legality of his convictions and sentences that he has previously 
presented to this Court in his other filings.  At no point in his response does Green 
offer any justification for his use or express any remorse for his repeated misuse of 
the Court’s limited judicial resources.  Based on his substantial filing history, it is 
likely that, if left unrestrained, Green will continue to inundate this Court with 
frivolous or meritless requests for relief.  We therefore conclude that Green has 
failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for his 
repeated misuse of this Court’s limited judicial resources.  We further conclude 
that the petition filed by Tommy L. Green, Sr., in this case is a frivolous 
proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner.  See § 944.279(1), Fla. 
Stat. (2015).   
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future 
pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Tommy L. Green, Sr., that 
pertain to case number 2011-CF-182, unless such filings are signed by a member 
in good standing of The Florida Bar.  Under the sanction herein imposed, Green 
may only petition the Court about his conviction or sentence in case number 2011-
CF-182 through the assistance of counsel whenever such counsel determines that 
 
 
- 5 - 
the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good faith.3  Further, because 
we have found Green’s petitions to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, 
pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, to forward a certified copy of this 
opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where 
Green is incarcerated.4     
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Mandamus 
 
Tommy L. Green, Sr., pro se, Bushnell, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent 
 
                                          
 
 
3.  In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants 
whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing scarce 
judicial resources in this Court.  See, e.g., Clark v. Crews, 159 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 
2014); 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). 
 
4.  See, e.g., Clark, 159 So. 3d at 123; McCutcheon, 117 So. 3d at 771; 
James, 75 So. 3d at 232; Johnson, 59 So. 3d at 1080; Steele, 14 So. 3d at 221.