Frank C. Johnson v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company

PER CURIAM. Petitioner Frank C. Johnson filed petitions for writs of mandamus in the above-styled cases. 1 On December 18, 2012, this Court entered an order consolidating the cases and dismissing the petitions pursuant to Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930, 931 (Fla.2000). In doing so, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against petitioner. Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., 2012 WL 6653024 (Fla. Dec. 18, 2012) (table). Over the past several years, petitioner has submitted a tremendous number of pro se filings in various courts in different cases, to the point that he is barred or limited in submitting pro se filings in the First District Court of Appeal, see Johnson v. Wilbur, 981 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Alachua County, Florida. Since 2004, petitioner has initiated twenty-one proceedings in this Court. 2 Many *508 of his most recent filings have been related to foreclosure proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Alachua County, Florida. Petitioner has not obtained relief on the merits in any of the proceedings that have been disposed of in this Court. Petitioner’s cases contain large numbers of individual filings, including motions, notices, and attachments. Many of his filings are handwritten and very difficult to decipher. Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s show cause order on December 31, 2012, and he also filed many other motions and requests for relief. Upon consideration of the response to the Court’s order, we conclude that he has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Accordingly, we now exercise the inherent power of this Court to protect itself from abuse of the judicial process and bar Petitioner Johnson from any future pro se filings of any kind related to his foreclosure proceedings. The Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Frank C. Johnson pertaining to Alachua County circuit court case numbers 01-2004-CA-1039 and 01-2008-CA-5581, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Johnson’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith. 3 Any and all pending motions or requests for relief filed by petitioner in these consolidated cases are denied. It is so ordered. POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. Footnotes [1] We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. [2] Johnson v. Wilbur, 895 So.2d 405 (Fla.2005) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Johnson v. Law Offices of Marshall, Watson, P.A., 942 So.2d 412 (Fla.2006) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Johnson v. Mitchell, 935 So.2d 499 (Fla.2006) (table) (review dismissed); Johnson v. The Florida Bar, 937 So.2d 1099 (Fla.2006) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Johnson v. Judicial Qualifications Comm’n, 977 So.2d 576 (Fla.2008) (table) (mandamus petition denied); Johnson v. Wilbur, 979 So.2d 219 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Johnson v. Wilbur, etc., et al., 979 So.2d 219 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Johnson v. Wilbur, 978 So.2d 159 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); *508 Johnson v. Law Offices of Marshall Watson, P.A., 979 So.2d 219 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Johnson v. Wilbur, 992 So.2d 820 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Johnson v. Wilbur, 982 So.2d 685 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed as untimely); Johnson v. Wilbur, 982 So.2d 685 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Johnson v. Wilbur, 982 So.2d 684 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed as untimely); Johnson v. Wilbur, etc., et at, 982 So.2d 684 (Fla.2008) (table) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., Case No. SC10-1472 (Fla. Sept. 27, 2010) (transferred); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., 70 So.3d 587 (Fla.2011) (table) (prohibition petition dismissed); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., Case No. SCI 1-1752 (Fla. Oct. 24, 2011) (transferred); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., 2012 WL 6653024 (Fla. Dec. 18, 2012) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., 2012 WL 6653024 (Fla. Dec. 18, 2012) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., Case No. 132 So.3d 1276 (Fla.2013) (mandamus petition dismissed); Johnson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., Case No. SC13-1690 (mandamus petition pending). [3] In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. State, 117 So.3d 769 (Fla.2013); James v. Tucker, 75 So.3d 231 (Fla.2011); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So.3d 1080 (Fla.2011); Steele v. State, 14 So.3d 221 (Fla.2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So.2d 20 (Fla.2008).