Opinion
Case No. SC04-2129.
April 14, 2005.
The all writs petition is hereby dismissed. Cf. Tyson v. Florida Bar, 826 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2002) (disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are instituted in the public interest and to preserve the purity of the courts, no private rights except those of the accused attorney are involved, and the complaining witness is not a party to the disciplinary proceeding and has no right to appeal). This Court does not investigate a determination by the Judicial Qualifications Commission that no formal charges should be instigated against a member or members of the judiciary. See Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm'n R. 6(a).
Since June 6, 2002, petitioner has initiated numerous pro se cases with the Court, all of which appear to emanate out of his 1994 dissolution of marriage proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida. None of petitioner's filings have resulted in any relief. See Sibley v. Sibley, No. SC02-1309 (Fla. Nov. 22, 2002) (denying review based on alleged direct conflict of decisions); Sibley v. Sibley, No. SC03-8 (Fla. Aug. 18, 2003) (same); Sibley v. Sibley, No. SC03-1953 (Fla. Sept. 3, 2004) (same); Sibley v. Sibley, No. SC05-11(Fla. Mar. 15, 2005) (same); Sibley v. Spears, No. SC02-2644 (Fla. May 27, 2003) (dismissing alleged direct conflict of decisions); Sibley v. Spears, No. SC03-261 (Fla. Feb. 18, 2003) (same); Sibley v. Sibley, No. SC03-1070 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2004) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus as moot); Sibley v. Sibley, No. SC04-178 (Fla. Apr. 14, 2004) (denying extraordinary writ petition).
Because petitioner has abused the processes of the Court with his numerous meritless filings, the Court finds that a limitation on petioner's ability to initiate any further pro se proceedings in this Court may be necessary in order to further the constitutional right of access of other litigants in that it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims filed by others. See In Re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (noting that "[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivilous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources"). The Court notes that the Third District Court of Appeal has already imposed such a sanction on petitioner. See Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (directing the clerk of court to "reject any further filings in this court on the former husband's behalf unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar (other than the former husband)").
Given petitioner's clear abuse of the judicial process in the Court, petitioner is hereby directed to show cause on or before April 29, 2005, why the Court should not impose upon him a sanction for his litigiousness, such as directing the Clerk of Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by him related to his 1994 dissolution of marriage proceedings unless they are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than petitioner.
ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.