SCOTT HUMINSKI
v.
TOWN OF GILBERT, AZ, ET AL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied Scott Huminski's petition for extraordinary relief, finding he abused his right of access to the court through frivolous and repetitive filings. The court also ordered that future filings by Huminski in certain cases be rejected unless signed by a licensed attorney.
The court held that Huminski's filings were frivolous and repetitive, constituting an abuse of the right of access to the court. Consequently, the petition was denied, and restrictions were placed on future filings.
[1] A pro se litigant may be restricted from filing further pleadings except through counsel when the litigant engages in a pattern of repetitious and frivolous filings that…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The petitioner's frivolous and repetitious filings burden the limited resources of this court, resources that are better reserved for the resolution of genuine disputes.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for denying the petition and imposing restrictions on future filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott Huminski filed a petition for extraordinary relief, which appeared to be a duplicate of a previously denied petition. He had a history of filing…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Extraordinary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Scott Huminski's pro se "petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus/all writs/coram nobis and other extraordinary relief" is denied. All pending motions in case 2D20-1557 are denied. Early in the course of this proceeding, we ordered the petitioner to show cause why the court should not direct the clerk of the court to reject new cases filed by the petitioner associated with two trial court cases, as well as further filings in the
- 2 - present case. We did so because it appeared that the petitioner was abusing his right of access to the court, as reflected in the following history recited in the order to show cause. About three months before filing the petition in this case, the petitioner filed an identical petition, initiating case 2D20-650. The court denied that petition and the petitioner's motion for rehearing. Following that denial, the petitioner continued to file motions in that case, including successive motions for rehearing, that were not authorized by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The filings included motions concerning another of the petitioner's cases, 2D19-1914,1 that were irrelevant to case 2D20-650.
Finally, the court issued an order to show cause why the petitioner should not be prohibited from making further filings in case 2D20-650. In the absence of a response from the petitioner justifying such filings, the court by unpublished order directed that no further filings made in case 2D20-650 would be given judicial consideration.
Nevertheless, the petitioner continued to file motions in that case. When the petitioner filed the identical petition creating the present case, it appeared to the court that he was attempting to circumvent the cut-off order issued in case 2D20-650. In response to the court's order to show cause, the petitioner claimed that he did not know how the case was initiated; "it just popped up." What this appears to mean is that the petitioner was attempting to electronically file yet further material in closed case 2D20-650 but failed during the filing process to specify that case number as 1Huminski is the counseled appellant in case 2D19-1914, Scott Huminski v. State of Florida, a judgment and sentence appeal. Though not directly relevant to, but certainly supportive of, our disposition here, the court previously cautioned the petitioner to cease filing pro se motions and other papers in that case on pain of possible dismissal. The court has stricken dozens of pro se filings in that case.
- 3 - the one in which to file the material, with the result that a new proceeding was created.2 Either way, the petitioner availed himself of filing numerous motions in newly created case 2D20-1557, once it had "popped up." Having reviewed the petitioner's response and other filings in this case, as well as the procedural history of case 2D20-650, the court concludes that the petitioner has not provided adequate justification for the initiation of new case 2D20-1557. The petitioner's frivolous and repetitious filings burden the limited resources of this court, resources that are better reserved for the resolution of genuine disputes. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (holding that "any citizen . . . abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims").
As such, we direct the clerk of this court to place in an inactive file any original proceedings filed by petitioner Scott Huminski involving Lee County cases 17-MM-815 and 17-CA-421, as well as any further filings in case 2D20-1557, unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See id. NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. 2The petitioner's numerous electronic filings in his several recent and ongoing cases reflect frequent inconsistencies between the case number in the caption of the filing and the case number selected during the electronic-filing process. The latter designation determines the case in which the filing is docketed, at least preliminarily.