Cafaro v. Estate of Diane Wyllins , 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7019 ( 2015 )

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
RALPH CAFARO, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case Nos. 2D15-81
) 2D15-82
ESTATE OF DIANE WYLLINS, ) 2D15-83
Deceased. ) 2D15-85
) 2D15-87
Appellee. )
)
) CONSOLIDATED
________________________________ )
Opinion filed May 13, 2015.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for
Pasco County.
Ralph Cafaro, pro se.
No appearance for Appellee.
SILBERMAN, Judge.
These five proceedings were initiated on December 31, 2014, by the filing
with the circuit court clerk in Pasco County of five sets of documents, each amounting to
twenty to forty-five pages in length, which the clerk interpreted as attempts to
commence appeals in this court. We have consolidated the five proceedings for
purposes of this opinion.
None of the documents filed with the circuit clerk included a paper titled
"notice of appeal" or an order entered by the circuit court. This court's clerk assigned an
appellate case number to each proceeding, but the absence of orders being appealed
prevented the court from ascertaining its jurisdiction. Accordingly, on January 9, 2015,
this court issued two orders in each appeal directing the appellant, Ralph Cafaro, to
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely and why it should not
be dismissed for failure to provide a copy of the order appealed as required by Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(d). Although Mr. Cafaro subsequently filed
additional papers in each appeal, they were not responsive to the orders to show cause,
and no trial court orders to be appealed were included with the papers. We therefore
dismiss each appeal for Mr. Cafaro's failure to provide an order that would demonstrate
this court's jurisdiction over the respective appeal.
We note further that these appeals follow a series of fifty proceedings that
Mr. Cafaro has filed in this court beginning in 2010. Forty-nine of these have been
dismissed, the vast majority for failure to file a copy of an order to be appealed.
Accordingly, on February 2, 2015, this court issued an additional order under the five
case numbers reflected in this opinion, directing Mr. Cafaro to show cause why he
should not be prohibited from instituting civil appeals or original proceedings in this court
unless submitted by a licensed attorney. As we explained in that order:
Mr. Cafaro's repeated submissions of mostly indecipherable
documents in large volume tax the limited resources of this
court's clerk and his staff, as well as the court's staff
attorneys and judges. Very few of his cases ever reach the
briefing stage. It appears that Mr. Cafaro harbors the belief
that the submission of a notice of appeal along with pages of
circuit court pleadings, his own commentary, and other
documents fulfills his requirements to perfect an appeal.
-2-
The lengthy submissions seeking review of either old or
unidentified circuit court activity consume an inordinate
amount of the time of the court's staff, causing delay in
servicing the appeals brought by other litigants who respect
the need to comply with the appellate rules and who seek
timely review of appealable circuit court orders. With each
appeal, judicial labor is required to determine the propriety of
dismissing his proceedings for failing to follow simple orders
from this court. All dismissals were preceded by orders
directing him to remedy shortcomings in the appeals or
otherwise address concerns of the court regarding
jurisdiction.
In response, Mr. Cafaro has filed a fifteen-page document that appears to set forth a
history of past lawsuits but is otherwise nonresponsive to the order. Because we have
determined that his frivolous and repetitious filings burden the resources of this court,
see Werdell v. State, 16 So. 3d 875, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), Ralph Cafaro is, as of the
date this opinion becomes final, prohibited from initiating any civil appeals or original
proceedings in this court unless they are submitted by a member in good standing of
The Florida Bar. See Broom v. Tucker, 94 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 2012). The clerk of
this court is directed to deposit any submissions from Mr. Cafaro that may otherwise
qualify to be treated as civil appeals or original proceedings in an inactive file that shall
receive no judicial consideration.
Appeals 2D15-81, 2D15-82, 2D15-83, 2D15-85, and 2D15-87 are
dismissed.
ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
-3-