Tyree Ford v. Carmine Marceno, Sheriff

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: May 16, 2024
• Docket: SC2023-1729
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2023-1729 ____________

TYREE FORD, Petitioner,

vs.

CARMINE MARCENO, SHERIFF, Respondent.

May 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Tyree Ford, a pre-trial detainee, filed a pro se “Motion for

Mandamus Relief to Dismiss, and Release Defendant for Lack of

Jurisdiction and Delegations of Authority by the State,” which we

treated as a petition for writ of mandamus. We denied the petition,

retained jurisdiction, and directed Ford to show cause why he

should not be sanctioned for his repeated misuse of our limited

resources. Ford v. Marceno, No. SC2023-1729, 2024 WL 666682

(Fla. Feb. 19, 2024); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s

Motion). Ford responded to our show cause order. We now find that Ford has failed to show cause why he should not be barred,

and we sanction him as set forth below.

Ford, who is a pre-trial detainee with pending charges against

him in Twentieth Judicial Circuit (Lee County) case numbers

362022CF000421000ACH and 362022CF014474000ACH, began

filing petitions with this Court in 2022 pertaining to his two lower

court cases. We have never granted the relief sought in any of

Ford’s filings, which have all been denied, dismissed, or transferred

to another court for consideration; his petition in this case is no

exception. Ford filed the mandamus petition in this case seeking to

compel discovery production and to challenge the trial court’s

authority over him. Ford admitted that he had sought this same

relief by filing a mandamus petition in another court but without

success. Therefore, he raised the claim before this Court. We

denied the petition as successive under Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322

So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 1975), because once a petitioner seeks relief

in a particular court by means of a petition for extraordinary writ,

he has picked his forum and is not entitled to a second or third

opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court.

Furthermore, we directed Ford to show cause why he should not be

-2- barred from filing any further pro se requests for relief in this

Court.

Ford filed a response in which he continues to assert that he

has a legitimate cause to file petitions in this Court and that his

cases are not frivolous. In his response, he failed to express any

remorse for his repeated misuse of this Court’s limited resources

nor acknowledge the frivolous nature of his repeated filings. Upon

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

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

Ford’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”). If no action is taken, Ford will continue to burden the

Court’s resources.

-3- Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Tyree Ford

related to case numbers 362022CF000421000ACH and

362022CF014474000ACH, unless such filings are signed by a

member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

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 – Mandamus

Tyree Ford, pro se, Fort Myers, Florida,

for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

-4-