ersistence doesn’t always pay off in court.
Twenty petitions filed by prison inmate John Everett Pettway to protest his life imprisonment for burglary and child molestation got him barred from filing motions with the Florida Supreme Court. He already had been sanctioned by the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
Gus Lanier can’t file any more pleadings with the 3rd DCA after filing his 45th bid for post-conviction relief. Lanier, who was incarcerated for assaulting a law enforcement officer, threatening to throw a bomb and drug possession, among other charges, was also shut off by the state Supreme Court twice after filing more than 60 meritless cases.
The Supreme Court recently prevented James L. Tate Jr. from filing any more pro se motions to vacate his attempted first-degree murder conviction and sentence after 18 filings that the court said were either meritless or inappropriate for its review.
In these instances and others, judges have directed clerks’ offices to refuse to accept anything from the litigants without the signature of a Florida Bar member in good standing. The spate of orders against Pettway, Lanier and Tate in recent months follows a line of sanctions against litigants who clog dockets with frivolous filings.
“This court and the United States Supreme Court have, when deemed necessary, exercised the inherent judicial authority to sanction an abusive litigant,” the Florida Supreme Court wrote in Tate’s unanimous decision March 13. The court does this to “preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice.”
For inmates, sanctions are double-barreled. The courts sometimes notify the state Corrections Department that prison officials may consider disciplinary action against offending inmates as punishment for renewed filings.
Former state Supreme Court Justice Arthur England said courts have opted for this technique to shut down appellants who use the court system to vent or pile on repetitive arguments without substance. He said it serves the dual process of warning the public about frivolous filings and keeping an offending litigant from clogging the courts.
“You can’t preoccupy the time of any public official to the detriment of doing the business of serving the public,” said England, a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig in Miami.
Miami criminal defense attorney Milton Hirsch said, “This is a self-defense mechanism: it’s what the courts do to keep from drowning.”
But embattled Coral Gables attorney Jack Thompson said litigants have every right to file court papers. He was the target of a similar sanction in his fight in March against The Florida Bar to keep his law license. Another Bar member must sign any new pleadings, but that appears unlikely.
“I can’t get a lawyer to represent me because no lawyer in their right mind would represent Jack Thompson because they know a Bar complaint is going to be filed against them,” he said.
Thompson, who has been recommended for disbarment in part because of his onslaught approach to court filings and adversaries, has been notified of rejected filings since the state Supreme Court sanctioned him.
He contends the method of punishment discriminates against pro se litigants by saying they can’t access courts without a lawyer.
“The right of advocating and presenting your case is the most basic of rights,” he said. “It’s the right where the securing and guaranteeing of other rights flow. If you’re shut up and gagged and denied access to the courthouse, you have no means by which to guarantee or secure those other rights.”
Thompson has signed on to represent Pettway after a May decision halted him from filing documents with the high court without a lawyer’s signature.
“Please tell Mr. Pettway that I am a lawyer in continuous good standing with The Florida Bar and will represent him free of charge,” Thompson wrote the inmate’s warden. “The Supreme Court has absolutely no right to tell him that he cannot represent himself.”
When asked why litigants pursue multiple filings, Thompson said, “Maybe they think they’re right.”
The federal court system also sanctions serial filers. Several cases reviewed by the Daily Business Review require pro se petitioners to submit payments for docketing fees.
In March, the Northern District of Georgia permanently enjoined a man who had filed more than 1,000 federal lawsuits nationwide from submitting anything else with the court without its permission. Under the order, the litigant, Jonathan Lee Riches, must sign an affirmation with each filing stating he agrees to be subject to prosecution if he makes false statements.
Riches, a federal inmate in South Carolina, filed suits against former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, fallen football player Michael Vick and singer Cyndi Lauper.
Many of the Florida decisions are cookie-cutter versions of each other. They mention the sheer volume of filings and opportunities offered to avoid sanctions for abusing the court system. The litigants either do not respond to the order or provide unsatisfactory answers.
Violators are subject to further sanctions. In some instances, courts order clerks to forward the opinion to prison officials or threaten to alert them if more filings arrive.
Despite these orders, many sanctioned litigants are repeat offenders. In 1999, the 2nd DCA wrote, “Pettway’s convictions and sentence have been exhaustively reviewed by this court and by the trial court, and he has received all relief due to him in this matter.” The opinion went on to say the clerk should reject future petitions from him.
More than two years after the state Supreme Court told Lanier that his 48 petitions meant he could not file anything else with the court, it sanctioned him again for filing another 13.
Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said courts go out of their way to guarantee a litigant’s due process rights.
“I haven’t ever seen a court — without some sort of warning — just unilaterally bar the filing of pleadings,” he said. “It usually only comes at the end of a long, tortured history of warnings against a particular litigant. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that they’re going to be barred unless they start complying with court rules.”
Marshall noted sanctioned litigants can continue to file meritorious claims through an attorney.
Thompson said the repeat litigants won’t be able to get lawyers.
“No one would come forward to help someone like Pettway other than me,” he said. “There’s a likelihood that the order will be the last we had ever heard of someone.”
Hirsch maintains sanctions don’t bar court access, but he concedes it would be harder to find a lawyer.
“If someone has been barred from filing pleadings and goes to an attorney and says, ‘Will you file my pleadings?’ that attorney will be extremely scrupulous about doing anything on behalf of that individual,” he said. “If someone had a good argument, presumably the person would be filing something reflecting that good argument and not something supposititious.”
England said court decisions shutting out litigants do not violate the state constitution, which ensures “courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”
To him, the underlying issue is the legitimate use of courts.
“We’re not denying your redress of injury,” England said. “You’re being abusive.”
Jordana Mishory can be reached at jmishory@alm.com or at (954) 468-2616.
|
Reader's comments
Jack Thompson, Attorney said:I appreciate the good reportage above of Ms. Mishory. One of the things we are looking at for Mr. Pettway is the disparity in sentencing. Pettway has been in prison for 15 years already, and he will spend his entire life there under the current sentence for "fondling" a girl. By contrast, the former Mayor of Coral Springs, FL, was recently sentenced to 4.5 years for molesting a 5-year-old. "Equal protection" anyone? The US Supreme Court, which often has problems with the Florida Supreme Court's rulings, held in Faretta that a criminal defendant has an absolute right to represent himself, unless he is mentally incompetent. The court pointed out in Faretta that the only Anglo-American tribunal that has EVER denied a criminal defendant the right of self-representation, guaranteed here by the Sixth Amendment, was the Star Chamber. That's great company to be in, no? If a court needs to sanction a litigant for filing meritless pleadings, they can do that. No question about that. But denial to someone of a constitutional right cannot be used as a "sanction." Put Pettway in solitary for a period. Withhold his writing implements for a period of time. Require him to save his prison income to use for a filing fee. Anything but deny him access to the court. That denial, however is precisely, what our Supreme Court in this state is doing because they're too busy to handle another filing from Mr. Pettway. Justice Cantero is not too busy to be interviewing with a number of large South Florida law firms for his new job when he leaves the court, as reported in this publication.June 12 at 7:23 a.m.
Jack Thompson, Attorney said: And by the way, this "sanction" was entered by the Florida Supremes against me for allegedly filing "meritless" pleadings. That's interesting. In the same order, the Court admits that it never reached the merits of my pleadings, and that only another lawyer could raise the issues. So this was not about sanctioning me for filing meritless pleadings. This was about silencing me because I had filed inconvenient pleadings, such as a quo warranto on the basis that the Bar referee and six of the seven Justices themselves do not have valid loyalty oaths, as mandated by federal law. That is why we are in federal court before Judge Lenard on that issue. In sum, the Florida Supreme Court is punishing pro se litigants because it does not want to deal with them and their claims. Period. Persistence does in fact pay, and this denial of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by the Florida Supreme Court will be overturned. Stay tuned. I'm Jack Thompson and You're Not (Congratulations!) June 12 at 8:07 a.m.
what a joke said: Serial filers????Look into Rhonda Hollander with her bogus civil litigations....what a disgrace to our country....Supreme court is childs play next to the $$ involved with unscrupulous lawyers. Bad company indeed. Supreme court, federal, etc. are just a distraction . June 12 at 10:49 p.m.
JackDon'tKnowJack said: @Jack Thompson: Didn't Judge Lenard already dismiss your suit with prejudice? Why are you claiming to still be before the court? Did you not recieve the order of dismissal? And Jack, "meritless" pretty much sums up your entire existence as an attorney. June 13 at 11:53 a.m. | |
