Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC2022-1542
____________
EDWARD R. STEINER,
Petitioner,
vs.
RICKY D. DIXON, etc.,
Respondent.
June 29, 2023
PER CURIAM.
Edward R. Steiner, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court. 1 We denied the
petition, expressly retained jurisdiction, and directed Steiner to
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for
his abuse of the Court’s limited resources. See Steiner v. Dixon,
2023 WL 355492 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2023); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)
(Sanctions; Court’s Motion). Having considered his response to the
show cause order, we find that Steiner has failed to show cause why
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
he should not be pro se barred, and we sanction him as set forth
below.
Steiner was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit (Seminole County) on two counts of kidnapping and
one count of aggravated fleeing and eluding (case number
592002CF004431A000XX). In 2006, he was sentenced to life
imprisonment as a Prison Releasee Reoffender on the kidnapping
counts and to thirty years as a Habitual Felony Offender on the
fleeing and eluding count. The Fifth District Court of Appeal per
curiam affirmed the judgments and sentences in 2008. Steiner v.
State, 987 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (table). In 2006, Steiner
was barred from filing any further pro se pleadings in the trial court
except for a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which Steiner filed in 2011 and
which the trial court denied in 2012. In 2014, the Fifth District
issued an order barring Steiner from filing any further pro se
pleadings concerning his convictions and sentences (case number
5D13-4040).
Since 2006, Steiner has engaged in a vexatious pattern of
filing meritless requests for relief in this Court pertaining to his
-2-
convictions and sentences. Including the petition in this case,
Steiner has filed twenty-one petitions or notices with this Court,
with seven of those petitions having been filed since 2021. 2 We
have never granted Steiner the relief sought in any of his filings.
Rather, we have denied, dismissed, or transferred each of his
petitions. Steiner’s habeas petition in this case is no exception. In
the petition, Steiner repeated his argument that the circuit court’s
2006 judgment and sentence and pro se barring order are void
because the judge who issued them was disqualified from the case
in 2005. In addition, Steiner claimed that the circuit court had
violated his right to a speedy trial. He requested that his habeas
petition be transferred to the circuit court with direction to accept
the petition and appoint counsel. We denied the petition as an
improper use of the writ of habeas corpus and directed Steiner to
show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro
se requests for relief.
In response to the show cause order, Steiner contends that
this Court has consistently overlooked the merit in his filings and
2. See Steiner v. Dixon, 2023 WL 355492 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2023).
-3-
states that he plans to retain private counsel to further litigate his
claims.3 But if this were true, Steiner could have already retained
counsel and sought relief in this Court through the normal
appellate process rather than through the filing of repetitive
extraordinary writ petitions. Steiner expresses no remorse for his
repeated misuse of this Court’s limited judicial resources, and we
are not convinced that he will in fact abandon his practice of filing
meritless or wholly inappropriate pro se requests for relief.
Thus, we find that Steiner has failed to show cause why he
should not be sanctioned for his abusive conduct. Therefore, based
on Steiner’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
3. The response was treated as timely filed in light of Steiner’s
allegation that he did not receive the order to show cause until the
day after his response was due.
-4-
rights of others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their
legitimate filings”). If no action is taken, Steiner will continue to
burden the Court’s resources. We further conclude that Steiner’s
habeas petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought
before the Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.
(2022).
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Edward R.
Steiner that are related to case number 592002CF004431A000XX,
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Steiner’s petition
to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to
section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2022), to forward a copy of this
opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or
facility in which Steiner 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,
and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.
SASSO, J., did not participate.
-5-
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Edward R. Steiner, pro se, Live Oak, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-6-