Curtis Nairn v. State of Florida ( 2023 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC2023-0907
____________
CURTIS NAIRN,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
December 14, 2023
PER CURIAM.
Curtis Nairn, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se petition
for writ of prohibition with this Court seeking relief against the trial
court. We denied the petition, retained jurisdiction, and directed
Nairn to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his
repeated misuse of our limited resources. Nairn v. State, No.
SC2023-0907, 2023 WL 5959745 (Fla. Sept. 13, 2023); see Fla. R.
App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that
Nairn has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and
we sanction him as set forth below.
Nairn was convicted of second-degree murder in the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, case
number 062006CF008303A88810. He was sentenced to life in
prison, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct
appeal. See Nairn v. State, 978 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Since 2007, Nairn has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious
filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court related to
his conviction and sentence. Including the petition in this case,
Nairn has filed fifteen pro se petitions with this Court. 1 The Court
did not grant Nairn the relief sought in any of those filings; each of
the petitions was transferred, dismissed, or denied. His petition in
this case is no exception. Nairn sought a writ of prohibition
directed at the circuit court judge who was presiding over his
postconviction proceedings. Because we “will generally not consider
the repetitive petitions of persons who have abused the judicial
processes of the lower courts such that they have been barred from
filing certain actions there,” we dismissed the instant petition under
1. See Nairn v. State, No. SC2023-0907, 2023 WL 5959745(Fla. Sept. 13, 2023).
-2-
Pettway v. State, 776 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2000), and we directed
Nairn to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any
further pro se requests for relief in this Court.
In response, Nairn filed a “Motion to Withhold Sanction in
Compliance With Court Order,” in which he continued to argue his
purported entitlement to relief related to his underlying case. He
failed to acknowledge or express any remorse for his repeated
misuse of this Court’s limited resources nor state that he would
abstain from further frivolous filings in this Court. Upon
consideration of Nairn’s response, we find that he has failed to show
cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on
Nairn’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”). It is apparent that if no action is taken, Nairn will
-3-
continue to burden the Court’s resources. We further conclude that
Nairn’s prohibition petition filed in this case is a frivolous
proceeding brought before the Court by a state prisoner. See
§ 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Curtis
Nairn that are related to case number 062006CF008303A88810,
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Nairn’s petition
to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, under section
944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2023), to forward a copy of this
opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or
facility in which Nairn is incarcerated.
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 – Prohibition
Curtis Nairn, pro se, Miami, Florida,
-4-
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-5-