Shannon L. Clark v. Michael D. Crews, etc. , 159 So. 3d 122 ( 2014 )

Menu:

          Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC14-866
____________
SHANNON L. CLARK,
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL D. CREWS, etc.,
Respondent.
[November 20, 2014]
PER CURIAM.
This case came before the Court on the petition of Shannon L. Clark for a
writ of habeas corpus.1 In an order dated June 23, 2014, the Court denied Clark’s
petition and expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions against
petitioner based upon the volume of petitioner’s meritless and inappropriate filings.
Clark v. Crews, No. SC14-866,

2014 WL 2885413

 (Fla. Jun. 23, 2014)
(unpublished); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). Since
2006, petitioner has filed at least twenty-three extraordinary writ petitions, not
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
including the instant petition.2 Petitioner was directed to show cause why he
should not be barred from filing in this Court any future pro se pleadings, motions,
or other requests for relief pertaining to his criminal convictions and sentences in
Case No. CRC00–21224CFANO–C, and why a certified copy of the Court’s
findings should not be forwarded to the appropriate institution for disciplinary
procedures pursuant to the Florida Department of Corrections as provided in
section 944.09, Florida Statutes (2014).
2. Clark v. McDonough, No. SC06-2184 (habeas transferred on
12/11/2006); Clark v. McDonough, No. SC07-76 (habeas transferred on
1/29/2007); Clark v. State,

958 So. 2d 918

 (Fla. 2007) (table) (mandamus denied);
Clark v. McNeil,

975 So. 2d 428

 (Fla. 2008) (table) (habeas dismissed); Clark v.
State,

5 So. 3d 668

 (Fla. 2009) (mandamus denied); Clark v. McNeil, No. SC08-
2311 (habeas transferred on 1/15/2009); Clark v. McNeil,

4 So. 3d 676

 (Fla. 2009)
(table) (habeas dismissed); Clark v. McNeil, No. SC09-854 (mandamus transferred
on 11/17/2009); Clark v. State, No. SC09-1051 (prohibition transferred on
8/18/2009); Clark v. State,

19 So. 3d 310

 (Fla. 2009) (table) (mandamus denied);
Clark v. McNeil,

51 So. 3d 465

 (Fla. 2010) (table) (all writs dismissed); Clark v.
State,

59 So. 3d 107

 (Fla. 2011) (table) (mandamus denied); Clark v. McNeil,

50 So. 3d 1137

 (Fla. 2010) (table) (habeas dismissed); Clark v. McNeil, No. SC10-
2021 (mandamus transferred on 12/2/2010); Clark v. State, No. SC11-2195
(mandamus transferred on 11/28/2011); Clark v. State, No. SC12-2139 (mandamus
transferred on 10/24/2012); Clark v. Khouzam, No. SC13-1876 (quo warranto
transferred on 12/16/2013); Clark v. State,

139 So. 3d 884

 (Fla. 2014) (table) (all
writs dismissed); Clark v. McCabe,

137 So. 3d 1019

 (Fla. 2014) (quo warranto
denied); Clark v. State, No. SC13-2478 (mandamus transferred 1/29/2014); Clark
v. State,

139 So. 3d 884

 (Fla. 2014) (all writs dismissed); Clark v. State,

143 So. 3d 917

 (Fla. 2014) (table) (mandamus dismissed); and Clark v. Crews,

143 So. 3d 917

(Fla. 2014) (table) (habeas dismissed).
-2-
Clark currently is incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections
upon his judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree murder and one
count of home invasion robbery in case number CR00-21224CFANO-C, entered
by the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County,
Florida, on December 21, 2001. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed
Clark’s judgment of conviction and sentences on December 27, 2002. Clark v.
State,

837 So. 2d 974

 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (table). Clark, who is serving a life
sentence on the murder conviction, was resentenced on June 24, 2014, on the home
invasion robbery count to a term of thirty years’ imprisonment.
Clark filed a response to this Court’s order to show cause, opposing a pro se
barring order based upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Petitioner did not address his frequent filing of nonmeritorious and frivolous
filings. After considering Clark’s response to the show cause order, we conclude
that the response fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. We
further conclude that Clark’s habeas corpus petition filed in this case is a frivolous
proceeding brought before this Court by a state prisoner. See 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.
(2014).
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Shannon L.
Clark, that are related to case number CR00-21224CFANO-C, unless such filings
-3-
are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on
Clark’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be
brought in good faith.3 Furthermore, because we have found Clark’s petition to be
frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida
Statutes (2014), to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the Florida
Department of Corrections’ institution or facility where Clark is incarcerated.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON,
and PERRY, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceedings – Habeas Corpus
Shannon L. Clark, pro-se, Bristol, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
3. In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants
whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce
judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. State,

117 So. 3d 769