Court Opinion

ID: 9367913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 16:03:02.004807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.546979
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                              ____________

                            No. SC22-1519
                             ____________

                              A.C., etc.,
                              Petitioner,

                                   vs.

          DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
                      Respondent.

                           February 2, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     This case is before the Court on the petition of A.C. for a writ

of mandamus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla.

Const.

     Petitioner has filed forty-one pro se petitions or notices with

this Court since August 29, 2022. On November 18, 2022, we

denied the instant petition, expressly retained jurisdiction, and

ordered Petitioner to show cause why she should not be barred

from filing further pro se requests for relief in this Court related to

circuit court case number 502020DP000123XXXXMB. A.C. v. Dep’t
of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1519, 2022 WL 17076781 (Fla. Nov.

18, 2022). Petitioner requested an extension of time to file a

response to the show cause order, which we granted on November

22, 2022. Since that time, Petitioner has continued to file

numerous meritless pleadings in this Court, including various

motions to dismiss the show cause order. In her response to the

show cause order, Petitioner acknowledges she has filed numerous

pleadings in this Court but argues she must challenge the lower

tribunals’ orders. Neither Petitioner’s response nor her motions

contain any justification for her continued abuse of this Court’s

limited resources by filing numerous meritless pro se notices and

petitions. Accordingly, we now find that Petitioner has failed to

show cause why she should not be sanctioned, and we outline

those sanctions below.

     Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of filing meritless pro se

requests for relief in this Court. Including the petition in the

instant case, Petitioner has filed forty-one pro se petitions or notices

with this Court since August 29, 2022. 1 Twenty-four of those cases

     1. See A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1631 (Fla.
Dec. 2, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed);
                                 -2-
A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1371 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2022)
(mandamus petition dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No.
SC22-1369 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2022) (mandamus petition dismissed);
A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1302 (Fla. Oct. 6, 2022)
(notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t
of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1296 (Fla. Oct. 4, 2022) (notice to
invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. &
Fam., No. SC22-1295 (Fla. Oct. 17, 2022) (mandamus petition
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1290 (Fla. Oct.
4, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); A.C.
v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1285 (Fla. Oct. 3, 2022) (notice
to invoke discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of
Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1282 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2022) (notice to invoke
discretionary jurisdiction dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams.,
No. SC22-1281 (Fla. Oct. 3, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary
jurisdiction dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-
1279 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1261, 2022
WL 4533802 (Fla. Sept. 28, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary
jurisdiction dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-
1259 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1156 (Fla.
Sept. 1, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1153 (Fla.
Aug. 31, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1149 (Fla.
Aug. 31, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1145 (Fla.
Aug. 30, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1143 (Fla.
Aug. 30, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1142 (Fla. Oct.
24, 2022) (notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction voluntarily
dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1405 (Fla. Nov.
10, 2022) (mandamus petition voluntarily dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t
of Child. & Fams., No. SC22-1406 (Fla. Nov. 10, 2022) (mandamus
petition voluntarily dismissed); A.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No.
                                  -3-
involved circuit court case number 502020DP000123XXXXMB. To

date, the Court has disposed of thirty-three of Petitioner’s cases,

including five petitions that Petitioner voluntarily dismissed. This

Court has never granted Petitioner the relief sought in any of her

filings. Petitioner’s thirty-three petitions and notices were all denied

or dismissed.

     Therefore, based on Petitioner’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 she has

abused this 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, Petitioner will continue to burden this Court’s resources.

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

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner

SC22-1411 (Fla. Nov. 14, 2022) (mandamus petition voluntarily
dismissed).
                               -4-
regarding circuit court case number 502020DP000123XXXXMB,

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

Florida Bar.

     Furthermore, because Petitioner persists in filing meritless

pleadings regarding other circuit court cases as well, we order

Petitioner to show cause, within three (3) days of the date hereof,

why she should not be barred from filing any pro se pleadings,

motions, or other requests for relief in this Court, unless such

filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.

     Petitioner’s “Writ of Mandamus,” which the Court has treated

as a motion for written opinion, as well as any other pending

motions or requests for relief are all hereby denied.

     No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by

this Court.

     It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL,
GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Mandamus

Angela Ciriello, pro se, West Palm Beach, Florida,

     for Petitioner

                                 -5-
Andrew Feigenbaum of the Florida Department of Children and
Families, West Palm Beach, Florida,

    for Respondent

                             -6-