STALLWORTH v. STATE (2019)

Charles Edward Stallworth seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court compelling the trial court to rule on Stallworth's pro se February 19, 2019 filing titled “Petition for Leave Pursuant to Florida Statute 68.093(4) to File a Timely 3.850(b)(1) Motion Premised upon Newly Discovered Evidence.” The trial court has not addressed Stallworth's filing because, on September 6, 2018, the lower court issued an order prohibiting Stallworth from “filing any further pleadings challenging his conviction and sentence in [lower tribunal number F01-12950A], unless such pleading is signed by a licensed attorney.”

“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.” Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000). When, as here, the trial court has entered an order prohibiting the filing of pro se pleadings, the remedy of mandamus is not available to require a trial court to adjudicate a motion filed in violation of the order. Id. We, therefore, deny the instant petition.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The instant petition marks Stallworth's eleventh filing ¹ with this Court associated with his conviction and sentence in lower tribunal case number F01-12950A. Stallworth is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or proceedings related to his criminal conviction and sentence in lower tribunal case number F01-12950A. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 49 (Fla. 1999) (holding that upon a demonstration of abuse, a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant reasonable notice and an opportunity to respond).

If Stallworth does not demonstrate good cause, any further unauthorized filings by Stallworth will subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019).

Petition denied. Order to show cause issued.

On October 23, 2019, this Court issued an opinion denying Charles Edward Stallworth’s mandamus petition. Our opinion contained an order to show cause why Stallworth should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or proceedings related to his criminal conviction and sentence in lower tribunal case number F01-12950A. Stallworth did not file a response to our show cause order.

We must balance Stallworth’s pro se right of access to courts with this Court’s need to devote its finite resources to legitimate appeals and petitions, recognizing the seriousness of the sanction when the litigant is a criminal defendant. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). After issuing an order to show cause and giving the defendant an opportunity to respond, this Court may prevent further such filings in the absence of a showing of good cause. Id.

Because Stallworth did not file a response to our show cause order introducing new argument or information for our consideration, we conclude that Stallworth has not demonstrated good cause to justify further pro se filings of appeals, petitions, motions, and other proceedings with this Court. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept from Stallworth any further pro se filings related to lower tribunal case number F01-12950A; provided, however, that the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal may accept filings related to case number F01-12950A if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.

Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Stallworth will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.

Order issued.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Stallworth v. Rundle, 2018 WL 6444388 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 23, 2018); Stallworth v. State, 244 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (table); Stallworth v. State, 207 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (table); Stallworth v. State, 191 So. 3d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (table); Stallworth v. State, 177 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (table); Stallworth v. State, 91 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (table); Stallworth v. State, 60 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (table); Stallworth v. State, 38 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); Stallworth v. State, 995 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (table); Stallworth v. State, 970 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table); Stallworth v. State, 963 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table)

PER CURIAM.