Opinion

Nathaniel Brown v. Julie L. Jones, Secretary, etc.

  • 221 So. 3d 1284
  • 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9893
  • 2017 WL 2945838
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Jul 11, 2017
Status
Published
On the bench
Wolf, Ray, Bilbrey
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 54.2%

The opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NATHANIEL BROWN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

v. CASE NO. 1D16-4480

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY,

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 11, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

Nathaniel Brown, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Brown appealed the final order denying his petition for writ of

mandamus, entered on September 9, 2016, by the circuit court in Brown v. Florida

Department of Corrections, Case No. 2016 CA 000708 (2d Cir., Leon Cnty.). In

Brown v. Jones, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1300b (Fla. 1st DCA June 6, 2017), we

affirmed the circuit court’s order. In light of Mr. Brown’s litigious history in this

Court, the previous sanctions imposed by Brown v. State, 35 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2010), and the warning regarding his subsequent litigation in Brown v. State,

186 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), we retained jurisdiction to pursue any

additional sanctions against him pursuant to rule 9.410, Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure and section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Steele v. State, 998 So. 2d

1146 (Fla. 2008); Walker v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 70 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA

2011).

Upon this Court’s order to show cause why additional sanctions should not

be imposed, Mr. Brown responded that his civil litigation and appeals should not

be considered together with his criminal appeals and postconviction filings in the

analysis of whether his filings were so frivolous and numerous that they amounted

to abuse of the court process. This response does nothing to refute the “‘strong

inference that unless he is stopped, [he] will continue filing nonmeritorious

requests for relief in this Court.’” Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080, 1082 (Fla.

2011) (quoting Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008)); see also

Williams v. Crews, 136 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 2014).

Accordingly, in addition to the sanctions already imposed upon Mr. Brown’s

ability to challenge his convictions and sentences pro se, we hereby direct the

2

Clerk to reject for filing any further appeals, petitions, motions, documents, or

other papers unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing with The

Florida Bar. See Martin v. State, 833 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2002); Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t

of Corr., 790 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2001). Mr. Brown is again warned that violation of

this order could result in referral to the Department of Corrections for sanctions

under section 944.279, Florida Statutes.

It is so ordered.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.