STEVEN EARL BEAVER, PETITIONER,
v.
CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Steven Earl Beaver, an inmate who filed 27 actions in the Fifth District Court of Appeal following his 2000 arson conviction, sought a writ of mandamus challenging a lower court order requiring attorney review of his filings. The court denied his petition and imposed a blanket prohibition on his future pro se filings in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court unless signed by a licensed attorney.
The court denied Beaver's mandamus petition and prohibited him from filing any future pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, petitions, or other papers in any proceeding pertaining to cases within the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court unless reviewed and signed by a licensed Florida attorney. The petition was found to be frivolous and without merit.
[1] A court may prohibit a litigant from filing further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, petitions, or other papers related to cases from a specific judicial circuit unles…
[2] A court may direct its clerk to refuse acceptance of pro se filings from a specific litigant in future proceedings related to cases from a particular judicial circuit unl…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“After being convicted of arson in 2000, Beaver has filed 26 different actions in this court, including eight civil appeals or petitions, eight mandamus petitions, and eight appeals of petitions related to his arson conviction.”
Establishes Beaver's pattern of prolific litigation that prompted the court's action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeaver was convicted of arson in 2000. He subsequently filed 26 different actions in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, including civil appeals, mand…
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 Frivolous Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On Order to Show Cause
After being convicted of arson in 2000, Beaver has filed 26 different actions in this court, including eight civil appeals or petitions, eight mandamus petitions, and eight appeals of petitions related to his arson conviction. In this, his 27th action before this Court, Beaver filed an incoherent petition for writ of mandamus directed to two lower court cases, numbers 00-1168 and 00-190. Beaver was apparently upset by an order in those cases barring him from filing any further pleadings without being reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney.
Pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), we ordered Beaver to show cause why he should not be denied further access to this Court “for any proceeding pertaining to any case within the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.” After consid ering Beaver’s response, we find that good cause has not been shown.
Therefore, to conserve our limited judicial resources, Beaver is prohibited from filing any new pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, petitions or other papers or any proceeding pertaining to any case within the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. See Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The Clerk of the Court of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Beaver in any future proceeding pertaining to any case within the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida. This prohibition does not apply to the appeals and petitions Beaver currently has pending before this Court.1
In addition to denying Beaver’s mandamus petition and denying him future pro se access to this Court, we note that the instant mandamus petition arose from two civil actions. Finding this petition to be frivolous and without merit, we observe that the Department of Corrections, pursuant to sections 944.279(1) and 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), has the authority to forfeit Beaver’s gain time and impose other appropriate disciplinary sanctions. Accordingly, we direct our clerk, pursuant to section 944.279, to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution or facility for consideration of disciplinary procedures against Beaver. See Spencer v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 823 So. 2d 752 (Fla.2002); Hall v. State, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla.2000).
PETITION DENIED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED; SANCTIONS RECOMMENDED.
PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . Case Nos. 5D04-1226, 5D04-1267, 5D04-2002, 5D04-2112, 5D04-3555 and 5D04-3561.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Hall v. State of Fla. & Michael W. Moore, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2000)
- Spencer v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 823 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2002)
- Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Mouzon v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)