Nathaniel Brown v. Julie L. Jones, Secretary, etc. , 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9893 ( 2017 )

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