WINDSOR v. LONGEST LLC (2021)

As to the orders rendered February 23, 2021, March 2, 2021, and March 3, 2021, Petitioner's petition for certiorari is dismissed as untimely. Petitions for writ of certiorari, like notices of appeal, must be filed within thirty days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. See Arce v. Maher Guiley & Maher, P.A., 936 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

As to the orders rendered March 24, 2021, March 25, 2021, and April 5, 2021, the petition is dismissed because those are interlocutory orders that can be properly addressed and a remedy provided, if appropriate, on plenary appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359, 363–64 (Fla. 2012).

As to the trial court's April 6, 2021 order barring Petitioner from filing any further pro se pleadings in that court, we deny the petition on the merits. We find that the trial court properly balanced Petitioner's right of access to the courts against the need to prevent a torrent of repetitive, meritless, and abusive pleadings from diverting the court's limited resources away from the timely adjudication of other cases. Petitioner was given proper notice and the opportunity to respond by showing cause as to why such a ban should not have been imposed before the trial court entered its order. The court's order forbidding future docketing of Petitioner's pro se filings unless signed and filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar is appropriate under the circumstances and is in no way a departure from the essential requirements of law.

Although access to the courts is constitutionally guaranteed, a citizen who files repetitive, meritless, and abusive pleadings can forfeit that right if the court gives that litigant notice and an opportunity to respond. See Bolton v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, 127 So. 3d 746, 747–78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999)). We hereby caution Petitioner that his numerous repetitive, meritless, and abusive filings, including those inappropriately termed to involve emergencies, may ultimately lead to a similar bar in this Court. We will continue to allow the clerk to accept and file his pro se papers, and this Court will give each due consideration. However, Petitioner should keep this warning in mind as he proceeds.

DISMISSED, in part; DENIED, in part; and pro se CAUTIONED.

EDWARDS, J.

LAMBERT, C.J., and SASSO, J., concur.