Opinion
No. SC12–454.
2012-05-4
Rodney McCUTCHEON, Petitioner(s) v. Kenneth S. TUCKER, etc., Respondent(s).
Because the Court has determined that relief is not authorized, this case is hereby dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004). Any motions or other requests for relief are also denied.
The Court hereby expressly retains jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against petitioner. See generallyFla. R.App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court's Motion). Since 1992, the petitioner has initiated multiple other cases in this Court involving his convictions and the sentences. See McCutcheon v. State, Case No. SC11–308 (Nov. 10, 2011) (notice to invoke review denied for lack of jurisdiction); McCutcheon v. State, Case No. SC 10–2176 (Nov. 10, 2011) (notice to invoke review denied for lack of jurisdiction); McCutcheon v. Beuttenmuller, Clerk, Case No. SC11–1332 (Oct. 4, 2011) (mandamus petition denied on the merits); McCutcheon v. Buss, Case No. SC11–1330 (Aug. 25, 2011) (prohibition petition transferred to the circuit court); McCutcheon v. State, Case No. SC 10–1663 (Sep. 23, 2010) (prohibition petition denied); McCutcheon v. State, Case No. SC05–1123 (Aug. 31, 2005) (all writs petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); McCutcheon v. State, Case No. SC02–791 (Jul. 9, 2002) (habeas corpus petition denied as procedurally barred); McCutcheon v. State, Case No. 79,826 (May 21, 1992) (petition for review administratively dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
It appearing that the petitioner has abused the judicial process by filing multiple pro se petitions in this Court that are either meritless or not appropriate for this Court's review, the Court now takes action. Therefore, Rodney McCutcheon is hereby directed to show cause on or before May 21, 2012, why he should not be barred from filing any pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief related to his present criminal case, unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar in good standing. See, e.g., 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). The petitioner's response should also show cause why the Court should not determine that the petition filed in this case is frivolous. See§ 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2011).