Samuel Rivera v. Ricky D. Dixon, etc. ( 2022 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC21-1190
____________
SAMUEL RIVERA,
Petitioner,
vs.
RICKY D. DIXON, etc.,
Respondent.
March 24, 2022
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Rivera, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se
petition with this Court seeking a declaratory judgment, which we
treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1 On December 13,
2021, we dismissed the instant petition and expressly retained
jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Rivera. Rivera v.
Dixon, No. SC21-1190, 2021 WL 5875469 (Fla. Dec. 13, 2021); see
Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
that Rivera has failed to show cause why he should not be barred,
and we sanction him as set forth below.
Rivera was convicted in Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade
County) case number 131985CF0250370001XX of one count of
first-degree murder and one count of robbery with a gun or deadly
weapon, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and 134
years’ imprisonment, respectively. On direct appeal, his sentence of
134 years for robbery was reversed and remanded, and he was
resentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment. See Rivera v. State, 526 So.
2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Since 2009, Rivera has demonstrated
a pattern of vexatious filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in
this Court related to case number 131985CF0250370001XX.
Including the petition in the instant case, Rivera has filed
sixteen pro se petitions with this Court. 2 The Court has never
granted Rivera the relief sought in any of his filings here; all of the
petitions were dismissed or denied. His petition in this case is no
exception. Rivera argued that his convictions violate double
2. See Rivera v. Dixon, No. SC21-1190, 2021 WL 5875469(Fla. Dec. 13, 2021).
-2-
jeopardy because the trial court dismissed the indictment for count
III, which he asserts is the same as counts I and II, of which he was
convicted. On December 13, 2021, we dismissed the instant
petition as unauthorized pursuant to Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d
1236 (Fla. 2004).
In response to this Court’s show cause order, Rivera maintains
that his convictions are a violation of double jeopardy. Rivera
asserts that before this Court takes any action sanctioning him, the
Court should first look at all the facts and circumstances of his
convictions and sentence. He then argues the merits of what he
believes were errors that occurred during his arrest, indictment,
and jury trial.
Upon consideration of Rivera’s response, we find that he has
failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Therefore, based on Rivera’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
-3-
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
taken, Rivera will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We
further conclude that Rivera’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. (2021).
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Samuel
Rivera that are related to case number 131985CF0250370001XX,
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Rivera’s petition
to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to
section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2021), to forward a copy of this
opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or
facility in which Rivera is incarcerated.
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by
this Court.
It is so ordered.
-4-
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ,
COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Samuel Rivera, pro se, Florida City, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-5-