Court Opinion

ID: 9380085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 07:02:42.781566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.550739
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                            ____________

                           No. SC22-1388
                            ____________

                        LADON M. GREEN,
                           Petitioner,

                                 vs.

                      RICKY D. DIXON, etc.,
                          Respondent.

                          March 16, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     LaDon Green, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se

petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court. 1 On December 1,

2022, we denied the instant petition and expressly retained

jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Green. Green v.

Dixon, No. SC22-1388, 2022 WL 17347248 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2022); see

Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find

that Petitioner has failed to show cause why he should not be

barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.

     1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
     Green was convicted in Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for

Duval County, Florida, case number 162012CF007413AXXXMA of

one count of armed robbery with a non-deadly weapon, for which he

was sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction and

sentence were per curiam affirmed on direct appeal by the First

District Court of Appeal. Green v. State, 139 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2014) (table). Since being sentenced in 2013, Petitioner has

demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of meritless pro se

requests for relief related to case number

162012CF007413AXXXMA and has been barred from filing pro se

pleadings or other requests for relief in the district court.

     Including the petition in the instant case, Petitioner has filed

fourteen pro se petitions with this Court.2 The Court has never

granted Petitioner the relief sought in any of his filings here; each of

the petitions were dismissed, denied, or transferred. His petition in

this case is no exception. Petitioner argued that he was denied the

right to counsel at critical stages of his trial and such counsel could

have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that led to his

      2. See Green v. Dixon, No. SC22-1388, 2022 WL 17347248
(Fla. Dec. 1, 2022).

                                   -2-
wrongful incarceration. On December 1, 2022, we denied the

instant petition as repetitive pursuant to Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d

1253 (Fla. 2004), as he had previously raised this exact claim in two

prior habeas petitions filed with the Court.

     In response to this Court’s show cause order, Petitioner

continues to argue that he is wrongfully incarcerated based on the

denial of counsel to him at critical stages of the proceedings.

Petitioner states that he has filed the same claims multiple times,

but only because no court has addressed the merits of those claims.

     Upon consideration of Petitioner’s response, we find that he

has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

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 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 rights of others to have the Court

conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings”). If no action is
                                  -3-
taken, Petitioner will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We

further conclude that Petitioner’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 LaDon

Green that are related to case number 162012CF007413AXXXMA,

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

Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Petitioner’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 Petitioner is incarcerated.

     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 – Habeas Corpus

LaDon Green, pro se, Century, Florida,

                                  -4-
    for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

                               -5-