Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida denied William E. Peterson's petition for a writ of mandamus as conclusory and facially insufficient. The court imposed filing restrictions, directing that future filings from Peterson that are facially insufficient or incomprehensible be placed in an inactive file without further action, and dismissed any currently pending petitions. The court grounded the restrictions in its inherent authority to prevent abuse of the judicial system while preserving access for legitimate litigants.
Holdings
- The petition for writ of mandamus was denied because it was conclusory and facially insufficient.
- The Supreme Court of Florida may exercise its inherent authority to prevent abuse of the judicial system by refusing to accept facially insufficient or incomprehensible filings from a litigant and placing them in an inactive file without further action.
Questions Presented
- Whether Peterson's conclusory and facially insufficient petition for writ of mandamus should be granted.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Florida could restrict Peterson from filing facially insufficient or incomprehensible pleadings and other documents without further judicial action as a sanction for abuse of the judicial system.
Disposition
writ_denied
Cases Cited (8)
- Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 1995)(followed)
- In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989)(relied upon)
- Peterson v. State, 530 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(followed by analogy)
- Peterson v. State, 743 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1999) (table)(cited)
- Peterson v. State, 729 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1999) (table)(cited)
- Peterson v. State, 718 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1998) (table)(cited)
- Peterson v. State, 717 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1998) (table)(cited)
- Peterson v. State, 657 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1995) (table)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…