Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC18-1531
____________
MARK C. JACKSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Respondents.
June 13, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Mark C. Jackson—a pro se litigant—filed a petition to invoke this Court’s
discretionary jurisdiction. By order dated April 11, 2019, we denied Jackson’s
petition but expressly reserved jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against
him. Jackson v. State, No. SC18-1531, 2019 WL 1575238 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2019);
see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion).
While his case was pending in this Court, Jackson filed a litany of motions
that were frivolous, devoid of merit, or sought relief previously denied in case
numbers SC12-367 and SC17-1628. Because of his filing history, Jackson was
ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from submitting further pro
se documents in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999)
(requiring that a litigant be provided notice and an opportunity to respond before
sanctions are imposed). Jackson has now filed a response to the Court’s order.
We conclude that Jackson has failed to show cause why he should not be
sanctioned. Through his persistent filing of nonmeritorious requests for relief,
Jackson has abused the judicial process. Jackson’s response neglected to provide
any justification for this abuse or to express remorse for his repeated misuse of the
Court’s resources. We are therefore convinced that, if not restrained, Jackson will
continue to burden this Court with frivolous and meritless filings, diverting finite
judicial resources from other litigants. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22
(Fla. 2008).
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, letters, or other requests for relief
submitted by Mark C. Jackson, unless such filings are signed by a member in good
standing of The Florida Bar.1 Counsel may file on Jackson’s behalf if counsel
determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.
1. In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other pro se
litigants who have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial
resources of this Court. See, e.g., Wetzel v. Travelers Cos., Inc., 267 So. 3d 978
(Fla. 2019); Shirah v. State, 257 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018); Woodson v. State, 242 So.
3d 315 (Fla. 2018); Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018).
-2-
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and
MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal –
Constitutional Construction
First District - Case No. 1D18-242
(Bradford County)
Mark C. Jackson, pro se, Starke, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-3-