HUMINSKI v. TOWN OF GILBERT (2020)

Scott Huminski's pro se “petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus/all writs/coram nobis and other extraordinary relief” is denied. All pending motions in case 2D20-1557 are denied.

Early in the course of this proceeding, we ordered the petitioner to show cause why the court should not direct the clerk of the court to reject new cases filed by the petitioner associated with two trial court cases, as well as further filings in the present case. We did so because it appeared that the petitioner was abusing his right of access to the court, as reflected in the following history recited in the order to show cause.

About three months before filing the petition in this case, the petitioner filed an identical petition, initiating case 2D20-650. The court denied that petition and the petitioner's motion for rehearing. Following that denial, the petitioner continued to file motions in that case, including successive motions for rehearing, that were not authorized by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The filings included motions concerning another of the petitioner's cases, 2D19-1914,¹ that were irrelevant to case 2D20-650. Finally, the court issued an order to show cause why the petitioner should not be prohibited from making further filings in case 2D20-650. In the absence of a response from the petitioner justifying such filings, the court by unpublished order directed that no further filings made in case 2D20-650 would be given judicial consideration. Nevertheless, the petitioner continued to file motions in that case.

When the petitioner filed the identical petition creating the present case, it appeared to the court that he was attempting to circumvent the cut-off order issued in case 2D20-650. In response to the court's order to show cause, the petitioner claimed that he did not know how the case was initiated; “it just popped up.” What this appears to mean is that the petitioner was attempting to electronically file yet further material in closed case 2D20-650 but failed during the filing process to specify that case number as the one in which to file the material, with the result that a new proceeding was created.² If the petitioner's intention was to continue filing material in case 2D20-650, he was violating the cut-off order issued in that case. Otherwise, the petitioner was improperly filing a duplicative proceeding after being warned about inappropriate filings in case 2D20-650. Either way, the petitioner availed himself of filing numerous motions in newly created case 2D20-1557, once it had “popped up.”

Having reviewed the petitioner's response and other filings in this case, as well as the procedural history of case 2D20-650, the court concludes that the petitioner has not provided adequate justification for the initiation of new case 2D20-1557. The petitioner's frivolous and repetitious filings burden the limited resources of this court, resources that are better reserved for the resolution of genuine disputes. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (holding that “any citizen ․ abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims”). As such, we direct the clerk of this court to place in an inactive file any original proceedings filed by petitioner Scott Huminski involving Lee County cases 17-MM-815 and 17-CA-421, as well as any further filings in case 2D20-1557, unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See id.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Huminski is the counseled appellant in case 2D19-1914, Scott Huminski v. State of Florida, a judgment and sentence appeal. Though not directly relevant to, but certainly supportive of, our disposition here, the court previously cautioned the petitioner to cease filing pro se motions and other papers in that case on pain of possible dismissal. The court has stricken dozens of pro se filings in that case.

2.   The petitioner's numerous electronic filings in his several recent and ongoing cases reflect frequent inconsistencies between the case number in the caption of the filing and the case number selected during the electronic-filing process. The latter designation determines the case in which the filing is docketed, at least preliminarily.

PER CURIAM.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.