Court Opinion

ID: 9405822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 15:06:14.751533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.962530
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                             ____________

                          No. SC2022-1542
                            ____________

                       EDWARD R. STEINER,
                           Petitioner,

                                  vs.

                       RICKY D. DIXON, etc.,
                           Respondent.

                            June 29, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     Edward R. Steiner, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se

petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court. 1 We denied the

petition, expressly retained jurisdiction, and directed Steiner to

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for

his abuse of the Court’s limited resources. See Steiner v. Dixon,

2023 WL 355492 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2023); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)

(Sanctions; Court’s Motion). Having considered his response to the

show cause order, we find that Steiner has failed to show cause why

     1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
he should not be pro se barred, and we sanction him as set forth

below.

     Steiner was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth

Judicial Circuit (Seminole County) on two counts of kidnapping and

one count of aggravated fleeing and eluding (case number

592002CF004431A000XX). In 2006, he was sentenced to life

imprisonment as a Prison Releasee Reoffender on the kidnapping

counts and to thirty years as a Habitual Felony Offender on the

fleeing and eluding count. The Fifth District Court of Appeal per

curiam affirmed the judgments and sentences in 2008. Steiner v.

State, 987 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (table). In 2006, Steiner

was barred from filing any further pro se pleadings in the trial court

except for a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which Steiner filed in 2011 and

which the trial court denied in 2012. In 2014, the Fifth District

issued an order barring Steiner from filing any further pro se

pleadings concerning his convictions and sentences (case number

5D13-4040).

     Since 2006, Steiner has engaged in a vexatious pattern of

filing meritless requests for relief in this Court pertaining to his

                                  -2-
convictions and sentences. Including the petition in this case,

Steiner has filed twenty-one petitions or notices with this Court,

with seven of those petitions having been filed since 2021. 2 We

have never granted Steiner the relief sought in any of his filings.

Rather, we have denied, dismissed, or transferred each of his

petitions. Steiner’s habeas petition in this case is no exception. In

the petition, Steiner repeated his argument that the circuit court’s

2006 judgment and sentence and pro se barring order are void

because the judge who issued them was disqualified from the case

in 2005. In addition, Steiner claimed that the circuit court had

violated his right to a speedy trial. He requested that his habeas

petition be transferred to the circuit court with direction to accept

the petition and appoint counsel. We denied the petition as an

improper use of the writ of habeas corpus and directed Steiner to

show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro

se requests for relief.

     In response to the show cause order, Steiner contends that

this Court has consistently overlooked the merit in his filings and

     2. See Steiner v. Dixon, 2023 WL 355492 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2023).

                                 -3-
states that he plans to retain private counsel to further litigate his

claims.3 But if this were true, Steiner could have already retained

counsel and sought relief in this Court through the normal

appellate process rather than through the filing of repetitive

extraordinary writ petitions. Steiner expresses no remorse for his

repeated misuse of this Court’s limited judicial resources, and we

are not convinced that he will in fact abandon his practice of filing

meritless or wholly inappropriate pro se requests for relief.

     Thus, we find that Steiner has failed to show cause why he

should not be sanctioned for his abusive conduct. Therefore, based

on Steiner’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

      3. The response was treated as timely filed in light of Steiner’s
allegation that he did not receive the order to show cause until the
day after his response was due.

                                  -4-
rights of others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their

legitimate filings”). If no action is taken, Steiner will continue to

burden the Court’s resources. We further conclude that Steiner’s

habeas petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought

before the Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.

(2022).

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

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Edward R.

Steiner that are related to case number 592002CF004431A000XX,

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

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

to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to

section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2022), to forward a copy of this

opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or

facility in which Steiner 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,
and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.
SASSO, J., did not participate.

                                  -5-
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus

Edward R. Steiner, pro se, Live Oak, Florida,

     for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

                                -6-