Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Benzo Elias Rudnikas, Petitioner v. Florida, et al.

~ Supreme Court, US,

FILED

FEB -9 2026

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

No. 25-657

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES

BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS,

Petitioner,

Vv.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

- - ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

EXPEDITED MOTION TO HOLD PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI IN ABEYANCE

/S/ BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS

BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS, PRO SE

P.O. BOX 347582

CORAL GABLES, FL 33134

(305) 213-9889

RECEIVED

FEB 11 2026

FFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21, Petitioner moves the Court to hold in abeyance

his Petition for Writ of Certiorari pending the filing of a timely certiorari petition for his

related appeal in the matter of Benzo Elias Rudnikas v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC.,

et. al.; 11th Cir. No. 25-10671. That case involves an appeal of the denial of a preliminary

injunction against the State of Florida and the probate judge under the ADA retaliation

statute in an original jurisdiction lawsuit Petitioner filed in the Southern District of

Florida on similar facts and claims being asserted in this removal proceeding. Petitioner

sought to enjoin the state parties from moving forward with the indirect criminal contempt

proceeding that Petitioner alleges was not only retaliatory but a vindictive prosecution as

it seeks to punish Defendant for what the law clearly entitles him to do: 1) record lis

pendens to protect his real property and 2) file federal discrimination lawsuits against the

State. This Court has deemed vindictive prosecution to be a violation of the due process

clause. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“To punish a person because he

has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic

sort, see North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, 395 U.S., at 738, 89 S.Ct., at 2082 (opinion of

Black, J.), and for an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to

penalize a person's reliance on his legal rights is “patently unconstitutional.”)

In its amended answer brief in that related appeal, the State of Florida and the

State of Florida’s probate judge all but admitted that that they did not provide a legitimate

non-retaliatory explanation to rebut Plaintiff's prima face of retaliation in opposing the

injunction at the District Court. Specifically, the probate judge argued that it would be

inappropriate to require him to comply with this Court’s precedent of rebutting the prima

facie case of retaliation because he is a State Court Judge:

“The Appellant suggests that Judge Cueto should have to explain any

difference in the orders issued in the probate case. (IB 25) The United States

Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of preventing judges from

testifying regarding their thought processes in entering an order because

such an examination “would be destructive of judicial responsibility.” See

United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941) (a judge’s thought process

relevant to judicial decisions is not within the purview of an examination).”

The State of Florida and the probate judge made this argument despite this Court’s

holding in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), that the State’s eleventh amendment

immunity is abrogated. In light of the admission in the answer brief, petitioner was

entitled to have the Eleventh Circuit reverse the District Court with instructions to grant

Petitioner the injunction. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981)

(“Establishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer

unlawfully discriminated against the employee. If the trier of fact believes the plaintiff's

evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter

judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case”)

Instead of giving him the injunction as required, on December 18, 2025, the

Eleventh Circuit, similar to the instant case, dismissed his entire appeal including as to

the State of Florida and the state court judge, under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine,

even though the State of Florida never sought to invoke same. Counsel for the State of

Florida and the State Court judge never filed any fugitive disentitlement doctrine motion

despite having the opportunity to do so and instead filed an answer brief, consenting to

having the appeal heard on the merits. Petitioner was never given the opportunity to be

heard in opposition to disentitlement as to the State Defendants. Nonetheless, the

Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal in violation of the principle of party presentation.

Clark v. Sweeney, No. 25-52, 2025 WL 3260170, at *1 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2025) (“In our

adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation.” United

States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 375, 140 S.Ct. 1575, 206 L.Ed.2d 866 (2020). The

parties “ ‘frame the issues for decision,’ ” while the court serves as “ ‘neutral arbiter of

matters the parties present.’” Ibid. (quoting Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243,

128 S.Ct. 2559, 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008)). To put it plainly, courts “call balls and strikes”;

they don't get a turn at bat. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U. S. ——, ——, 140 8.Ct. 1721,

207 L.Ed.2d 132 (2020). The Fourth Circuit transgressed the party-presentation principle

by granting relief on a claim that Sweeney never asserted and that the State never had

the chance to address.”). Given the similar facts and legal issues, Petitioner contends that

this case should be stayed pending the timely filing of a writ of certiorari for the related

appeal so that the cases can be consolidated.

More specifically, the two (2) haphazard one sentence orders of dismissal that have

been entered in both this appeal and the related appeal, notwithstanding that the State of

Florida never raised the fugitive disentitlement issue, is not only a violation of the

principle of party presentation, but raises the inference that the Eleventh Circuit is

engaging in the practice of too free a recourse to rules foreclosing consideration of

petitioner’s appeals from being heard on the merits, which this Court has held as

disserving the very purpose for which the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is invoked.

Degen v. U.S., 517 U.S. 820, 828-29 (1996)(“ It remains the case, however, that the

sanction of disentitlement is most severe and so could disserve the dignitary purposes for

which it is invoked. The dignity of a court derives from the respect accorded its judgments.

That respect is eroded, not enhanced, by too free a recourse to rules foreclosing

consideration of claims on the merits.”)

In light of same, Petitioner’s believes that he has a higher chance of being granted

certiorari by this Court, when the two one sentence orders of dismissal are considered by

the Court collectively in a consolidated posture as opposed to being considered months

apart. Additionally, considering both petitions together in a consolidated posture would be

in the interest of judicial economy. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the instant

petition for writ of certiorari in this case be held in abeyance pending the timely filing of a

petition for writ of certiorari in the related appeal of Benzo Elias Rudnikas v. Fidelity

Brokerage Services, LLC, et. al.; 11t Cir. No. 25-10671. Petitioner has conferred with

Counsel for Respondent regarding his position on the foregoing motion via email but has

yet to receive a response.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the Court grant this motion.

Dated this 9th day of February 2026,

/S/ BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS

BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS, PRO SE

P.O. BOX 347582

CORAL GABLES, FL 33134

(805) 213-9889

Service List:

Jeffrey DeSousa, Counsel for Respondent State of Florida

Solicitor General

Florida Office of the Attorney General

107 W. Gaines Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

jeffrey.desousa@myfloridalegal.com

Ph: 5088018425

No. 25- 657

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS

Petitioner,

STATE OF FLORIDA.

Respondent.

PROOF OF SERVICE

Petitioner, Benzo Elias Rudnikas, pro se, hereby certifies that on this 9th day of

February 2026, all parties required to be served have been served with one copy of

Petitioner’s Expedited Motion To Hold Petition For Writ Of Certiorari In Abeyance.

Specifically, a copy was served via U.S Certified Mail and via electronic email

service, as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 and Rule 33.2, on the following:

Jeffrey DeSousa, Counsel for Respondent State of Florida, Solicitor General,

Florida Office of the Attorney General, 107 W. Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL

32399, jeffrey.desousa@myfloridalegal.com: Ph: 5088018425.

/S/ BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS

BENZO ELIAS RUDNIKAS, PRO SE

P.O. BOX 347582

CORAL GABLES, FL 33134

(305) 213-9889

VERIFICATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct.

pa

Benzo Elias Rudnikas Executed on February 9, 2026