Opinion
Case No. SC11-205.
May 18, 2011.
Lower Tribunal No(s). 79-3126-CFA02.
The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed because this Court generally will not consider the repetitive petitions of persons who have abused the judicial processes of the lower courts such that they have been barred from filing certain actions there. See Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000). Any motions or other requests for relief are denied.
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner. See generally Fla.R.App.P. 9.410(a).
Since 2000, petitioner has initiated twenty-six other cases in this Court. See Hastings v. Fla. Parole Comm., Case No. SC10-1717 (Fla. Oct. 25, 2010) (mandamus petition transferred to the circuit court); Hastings v. McNeil, Case No. SC10-1160 (Fla. Sep. 6, 2010) (mandamus petition transferred to the circuit court); Hastings v. McNeil, Case No. SC10-586 (Fla. May 4, 2010) (prohibition petition transferred to the district court); Hastings v. State, 44 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 2010) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Hastings v. McNeil, Case No. SC09-1999 (Fla. Dec. 9, 2009) (mandamus petition transferred to circuit court); Hastings v. State, 12 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 2009) (table) (mandamus petition dismissed); Hastings v. McNeil, 3 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 2008) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed); Hastings v. State, 996 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2008) (table) (denying discretionary review); Hastings v. State, 993 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2008) (table) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Hastings v. McDonough, 965 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2007) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed); Hastings v. McDonough, 945 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 2006) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed); Hastings v. State, 898 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2005) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as duplicative); Hastings v. State, 902 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2005) (table) (denying discretionary review); Hastings v. State, 907 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2005) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed as unauthorized); Hastings v. State, 902 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2005) (table) (habeas corpus petition denied); Hastings v. State, Case No. SC03-1522 (Fla. Sep. 19, 2003) (habeas corpus petition transferred to the circuit court); Hastings v. State, 884 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2004) (table) (habeas corpus petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Hastings v. State, 821 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2002) (table) (mandamus petition denied in part and dismissed in part); Hastings v. State, 826 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2002) (table) (habeas corpus petition denied as procedurally barred); Hastings v. State, 805 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2002) (table) (denying discretionary review); Hastings v. State, 807 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2001) (table) (habeas corpus petition denied as procedurally barred); Hastings v. State, Case No. SC01-800 (Fla. Aug. 4, 2001) (mandamus petition transferred to district court); Hastings v. State, Case No. SC00-1836 (Fla. Nov. 17, 2000) (habeas corpus petition transferred to the circuit court); Hastings v. State, Case No. SC00-1054 (Fla. June 13, 2000) (habeas corpus petition transferred to the circuit court); Hastings v. State, 762 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2000) (table) (habeas corpus petition denied as procedurally barred); Hastings v. State, 753 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2000) (table) (habeas corpus petition voluntarily dismissed).
This Court has chosen to sanction pro se petitioners who have abused the judicial process and otherwise misused this Court's limited judicial resources by filing frivolous, nonmeritorious, or otherwise inappropriate filings related to their convictions and sentences. Such petitioners have been barred from initiating further proceedings in this Court related to their convictions and sentences unless their pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief were filed under the signature of a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008); Tate v. McNeil, 983 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2008); Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998).
It appearing that petitioner has abused the judicial process by filing numerous pro se filings in this Court that are either meritless or not appropriate for this Court's review, the Court now takes action. Therefore, Jeffrey R. Hastings is hereby directed to show cause on or before June 2, 2011, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief in this Court related to Case No. 74-179-CF and Case No. 79-3126-CFA02 unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.