Opinion
No. 1D20-0465
05-13-2020
Ava Electris CANNIE a/k/a Eva Helene Cannie, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Ava Electris Cannie, pro se, Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Ava Electris Cannie, pro se, Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
This case was a pro-se petition for writ of prohibition, which we found meritless. Our records reflect that Petitioner has filed approximately three dozen different pro-se cases with this Court since 2015, using several variations and combinations of her first and middle names: Ava, Eva, Ava/Eva, or Eve; followed by Electra, Electris, E., Helen, Helene, H., or two of those combined. As to both civil matters and postconviction appeals and petitions, Petitioner's filings are characterized by rambling, disorganized, off-topic, and repetitive arguments, including attacks and threats of action against judges, public officials, governmental bodies, and litigation opponents. She often files voluminous appendices, ill-organized, including matters outside the record and irrelevant. The dockets in her cases become crowded with her repetitive, unnecessary, and meritless filings. The present petition was no more meritorious than her earlier filings. We therefore ordered Petitioner, pursuant to State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), to show cause why she should not be barred from further pro-se filings in this Court. We have considered her response, which bore the same characteristics as her typical filings, and which we find failed to show cause why this Court should not prohibit her from making any pro-se filings in this Court. Based on her persistent history of filing pro-se petitions that are frivolous, meritless, or otherwise inappropriate, Petitioner has abused the judicial process and burdened this Court's limited judicial resources.
It is this Court's responsibility "to see that these [judicial] resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice." May v. Barthet , 934 So. 2d 1184, 1187 (Fla. 2006) (quoting In re McDonald , 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989) ). This Court is imbued with the inherent power to sanction litigants that abuse the legal system. See id.
Exercising that power, we find Petitioner's repeated filings a hindrance to this Court's ability to devote its resources to the timely consideration of genuine disputes and legitimate, colorable claims. See Pettway v. McNeil , 987 So. 2d 20, 22–23 (Fla. 2008) ; see also Ferris v. State , 100 So. 3d 142, 144–45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Wetherell, J., concurring) (explaining Appellant's filings, like all papers filed in this Court, require the Court to expend scarce judicial resources).
Therefore, we prohibit Petitioner from filing, and instruct the Clerk of this Court to reject, any future pro-se pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, papers, and any other pro-se filings by Petitioner in this Court, under this case number or any other. This prohibition includes any response or motion directed to this opinion and bar order. Any future filings in this Court on behalf of Petitioner must be signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Petitioner's behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith. Any violation of this prohibition may subject Petitioner to contempt proceedings or other appropriate sanctions, or both.
Petitioner stands BARRED .
Rowe, Makar, and Kelsey, Jj., concur.