Curtis Nairn v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: December 14, 2023
• Docket: SC2023-0907
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2023-0907 ____________

CURTIS NAIRN, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

December 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Nairn, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition

for writ of prohibition with this Court seeking relief against the trial

court. We denied the petition, retained jurisdiction, and directed

Nairn to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his

repeated misuse of our limited resources. Nairn v. State, No.

SC2023-0907, 2023 WL 5959745 (Fla. Sept. 13, 2023); see Fla. R.

App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that

Nairn has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and

we sanction him as set forth below. Nairn was convicted of second-degree murder in the

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, case

number 062006CF008303A88810. He was sentenced to life in

prison, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct

appeal. See Nairn v. State, 978 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Since 2007, Nairn has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious

filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court related to

his conviction and sentence. Including the petition in this case,

Nairn has filed fifteen pro se petitions with this Court. 1 The Court

did not grant Nairn the relief sought in any of those filings; each of

the petitions was transferred, dismissed, or denied. His petition in

this case is no exception. Nairn sought a writ of prohibition

directed at the circuit court judge who was presiding over his

postconviction proceedings. Because we “will generally 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,” we dismissed the instant petition under

1. See Nairn v. State, No. SC2023-0907, 2023 WL 5959745 (Fla. Sept. 13, 2023).

-2- Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000), and we directed

Nairn to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any

further pro se requests for relief in this Court.

In response, Nairn filed a “Motion to Withhold Sanction in

Compliance With Court Order,” in which he continued to argue his

purported entitlement to relief related to his underlying case. He

failed to acknowledge or express any remorse for his repeated

misuse of this Court’s limited resources nor state that he would

abstain from further frivolous filings in this Court. Upon

consideration of Nairn’s response, we find that he has failed to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on

Nairn’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions and requests for

relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s

review, we now find that he has abused the Court’s limited judicial

resources. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008)

(explaining that this Court has previously “exercised the inherent

judicial authority to sanction an abusive litigant” and that “[o]ne

justification for such a sanction lies in the protection of the rights of

others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their legitimate

filings”). It is apparent that if no action is taken, Nairn will

-3- continue to burden the Court’s resources. We further conclude that

Nairn’s prohibition petition filed in this case is a frivolous

proceeding brought before the Court by a state prisoner. See

§ 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).

Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Curtis

Nairn that are related to case number 062006CF008303A88810,

unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The

Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Nairn’s petition

to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, under section

944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2023), to forward a copy of this

opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or

facility in which Nairn is incarcerated.

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by

this Court.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Prohibition

Curtis Nairn, pro se, Miami, Florida,

-4- for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

-5-