Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC18-476
____________
KENNETH L. SHIRAH, SR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
October 19, 2018
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on the petition of Kenneth L. Shirah, Sr. for a
writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. By
order dated July 10, 2018, we dismissed Shirah’s petition as facially insufficient.
Shirah v. State, No. SC18-476, Order at 1, 2018 WL 3360586 (Fla. July 10, 2018).
Concurrent with the dismissal of the petition, we expressly retained jurisdiction to
pursue possible sanctions against Shirah. Id.; see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)
(Sanctions; Court’s Motion).
Shirah was convicted in the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit,
in and for Holmes County, Florida, of two counts of coercing a child to perform a
sex act (case number 301992CF000178XXAXMX), and sentenced to a seventeen-
year term of imprisonment for each count in 1993. Shirah was released from
custody in 2000.
Shirah began filing petitions with the Court in 2000. Since that time, he has
filed thirteen previous petitions and notices related to his convictions in circuit
court case number 301992CF000178XXAXMX.1 Seven of these filings have been
habeas petitions that were dismissed as facially insufficient, while the remainder
were dismissed on other grounds, denied, or transferred. The habeas petition in
this case was no exception. The petition contained scattered references to Shirah’s
1. See Shirah v. Jones, No. SC17-457, 2017 WL 1399834 (Fla. Apr. 19,
2017) (habeas petition dismissed as facially insufficient); Shirah v. State, No.
SC17-59, 2017 WL 944243 (Fla. Mar. 10, 2017) (habeas petition dismissed as
facially insufficient); Shirah v. State, No. SC16-449, 2016 WL 1583844 (Fla. Apr.
20, 2016) (notice administratively dismissed); Shirah v. State, No. SC15-1385 (Fla.
Sept. 9, 2015) (mandamus petition transferred); Shirah v. State, 177 So. 3d 1271
(Fla. 2015) (table) (No. SC15-703) (habeas petition dismissed as facially
insufficient); Shirah v. State, 163 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2015) (table) (No. SC14-2457)
(habeas petition dismissed as facially insufficient); Shirah v. State, 147 So. 3d 527
(Fla. 2014) (table) (No. SC14-776) (habeas petition dismissed as facially
insufficient); Shirah v. State, 145 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 2014) (table) (No. SC13-2564)
(habeas petition dismissed as a repetitive transfer); Shirah v. State, 135 So. 3d 290
(Fla. 2013) (table) (No. SC13-1714) (habeas petition dismissed for failure to
comply); Shirah v. State, 84 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. 2012) (table) (No. SC12-183)
(habeas petition dismissed as facially insufficient); Shirah v. Buss, 64 So. 3d 118
(Fla. 2011) (table) (No. SC11-609) (habeas petition dismissed as facially
insufficient); Shirah v. McNeil, No. SC10-149 (Fla. Apr. 13, 2010) (mandamus
petition transferred); Shirah v. State, 770 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2000) (table) (No. SC00-
1449) (habeas petition denied as procedurally barred).
-2-
convictions and sentences, but was otherwise nearly incomprehensible. Because
this was Shirah’s fourteenth petition or notice pertaining to his convictions filed in
this Court since 2000, and the eighth such petition to be dismissed as facially
insufficient, we issued an order directing Shirah to show cause why he should not
be prohibited from filing any further pro se documents in this Court related to the
above-stated case. Shirah failed to file a response to the order to show cause.
This Court has exercised its inherent authority to sanction litigants who
abuse the judicial process and burden its limited resources with repeated requests
for relief that are either frivolous or devoid of merit. E.g., Hickmon v. Jones, 237
So. 3d 932 (Fla. 2018); Woodson v. State, 242 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2018). Through his
persistent history of filing pro se petitions that were frivolous, meritless, or
otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s review, Shirah has abused the judicial
process and burdened this Court’s limited judicial resources. His filings indicate a
lack of understanding of the appellate process and that he is unwilling or unable to
gain an understanding of it. Shirah did not respond to the order to show cause,
thus failing to offer any justification or express any regret for his repeated misuse
of this Court’s resources. We are therefore convinced that, if not restrained, Shirah
will continue to abuse the judicial process and burden this Court with frivolous and
meritless filings pertaining to circuit court case number
301992CF000178XXAXMX.
-3-
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings
or other requests for relief submitted by Kenneth L. Shirah, Sr. that pertain to
circuit court case number 301992CF000178XXAXMX, unless such filings are
signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Henceforth, Shirah may
only petition the Court about his convictions or sentences in case number
301992CF000178XXAXMX through the assistance of counsel whenever such
counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be filed in good
faith.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA,
and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Kenneth L. Shirah, Sr., pro se, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-4-