LaDon M. Green v. Ricky D. Dixon, etc. ( 2023 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC22-1388
____________
LADON M. GREEN,
Petitioner,
vs.
RICKY D. DIXON, etc.,
Respondent.
March 16, 2023
PER CURIAM.
LaDon Green, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court.1 On December 1,
2022, we denied the instant petition and expressly retained
jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Green. Green v.
Dixon, No. SC22-1388, 2022 WL 17347248 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2022); see
Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find
that Petitioner has failed to show cause why he should not be
barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
Green was convicted in Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Duval County, Florida, case number 162012CF007413AXXXMA of
one count of armed robbery with a non-deadly weapon, for which he
was sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction and
sentence were per curiam affirmed on direct appeal by the First
District Court of Appeal. Green v. State, 139 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2014) (table). Since being sentenced in 2013, Petitioner has
demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of meritless pro se
requests for relief related to case number
162012CF007413AXXXMA and has been barred from filing pro se
pleadings or other requests for relief in the district court.
Including the petition in the instant case, Petitioner has filed
fourteen pro se petitions with this Court. 2 The Court has never
granted Petitioner the relief sought in any of his filings here; each of
the petitions were dismissed, denied, or transferred. His petition in
this case is no exception. Petitioner argued that he was denied the
right to counsel at critical stages of his trial and such counsel could
have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that led to his
2. See Green v. Dixon, No. SC22-1388, 2022 WL 17347248(Fla. Dec. 1, 2022).
-2-
wrongful incarceration. On December 1, 2022, we denied the
instant petition as repetitive pursuant to Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d
1253 (Fla. 2004), as he had previously raised this exact claim in two
prior habeas petitions filed with the Court.
In response to this Court’s show cause order, Petitioner
continues to argue that he is wrongfully incarcerated based on the
denial of counsel to him at critical stages of the proceedings.
Petitioner states that he has filed the same claims multiple times,
but only because no court has addressed the merits of those claims.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s response, we find that he
has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Therefore, based on Petitioner’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 rights of others to have the Court
conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings”). If no action is
-3-
taken, Petitioner will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We
further conclude that Petitioner’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 LaDon
Green that are related to case number 162012CF007413AXXXMA,
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Petitioner’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 Petitioner is incarcerated.
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by
this Court.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL,
GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
LaDon Green, pro se, Century, Florida,
-4-
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-5-