United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 22, 2017, Petitioner Sidney Marts filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner challenges a disciplinary
report (DR) and the loss of thirty (30) days of gain time
imposed by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) on
August 1, 2017. Id. See Ex. B at
On April 16, 2018, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
§ 2254 petition for failure to exhaust all available
state court remedies. ECF No. 8. Petitioner filed a reply on
May 1, 2018. ECF No. 11.
matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for
report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2 (B). After
careful consideration of all the issues raised, the
undersigned has determined that no evidentiary hearing is
required for disposition of this matter. See Rule 8
(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. For the
reasons stated herein, the pleadings and attachments before
the Court show that the petition should be dismissed.
See Rule 4, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases (allowing
dismissal “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief” in federal court).
HISTORY & BACKGROUND
filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner's § 2254
petition for failure to exhaust all available state court
remedies prior to seeking federal habeas review. ECF No. 8.
Respondent claims Petitioner did not file a petition for writ
of mandamus to challenge his disciplinary report in any state
court and, therefore, Petitioner has not exhausted the
available state court remedies as required by U.S.C. §
2254(b). Id. at 5. Petitioner contends state court
relief was unavailable due to court orders preventing him
from filing pro se actions concerning his criminal case. ECF
is an inmate in the Florida DOC, serving a sixteen-year
prison sentence pursuant to a 2007 conviction in No.
2007-CF-06067A in the First Judicial Circuit Court in
Escambia County. Ex. A at 1.
result, Petitioner filed numerous state post-conviction
motions challenging the validity of his conviction and
judgment, which prompted the disciplinary proceedings that
are the subject of this petition.
2, 2013, the state trial court issued an order prohibiting
Petitioner from filing pro se motions. Ex. B at 17. The court
explained Petitioner was prohibited from filing “in
this Court in this matter unless said pleadings are reviewed
and signed by an attorney” because Petitioner had
“persisted in filing repetitious motions, despite
having been cautioned regarding such filing.”
Id. Petitioner had previously been barred from
filing pro se motions in the First District Court of Appeal
(DCA) and was warned “any future filings which violate
the terms of this opinion may result in a referral to the
appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures.”
Marts v. State, 59 So.3d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
January 26, 2017, in response to Petitioner's pro se
petition for Writ of Mandamus filed on November 18, 2016, the
state trial court in Escambia County directed the Clerk of
Court to “file and maintain the document in the record
without further response from the Court.” Ex. B at 14.
On July 21, 2017, the state court denied another pro se
motion filed by Petitioner. Id. at 9. The state
court found that Petitioner had continued to file frivolous,
successive motions and “abuse[d] the process, ”
and forwarded a copy of the order to the Florida DOC
“for consideration of sanctions under section
944.279.” Id. at 2, 9.
August 1, 2017, in response to the state trial court's
order, the DOC charged Petitioner with a DR for filing
frivolous motions in accordance with section 944.279 (1).
Id. at 2; see Fla. Admin. Code R.
33-601.314 (9-32); § 944.279 (1) Fla. Stat. (2016)
(“A prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a
frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or
appeal in any court of this state or in any federal court
… or who knowingly or with reckless disregard for the
truth brought false information or evidence before the court,
is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules
of the Department of Corrections.”).
started an investigation regarding the disciplinary report.
Ex. B at 4. Petitioner “refused to participate”
and did not provide a statement, witnesses, or evidence for
the hearing. Id. at 5-8. Petitioner did not sign any
of the necessary forms for the proceeding. Id. On
August 3, 2017, the DOC held a disciplinary hearing. The
disciplinary hearing team found Petitioner guilty of filing
frivolous claims in the state trial court. Id. at 3.
Petitioner received fifteen (15) days of disciplinary
confinement, fifteen (15) days of probation, and lost thirty
(30) days of gain time. Id.
August 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a grievance regarding the
state trial court's decision to request that DOC impose
sanctions on Petitioner. Ex C. at 2. Petitioner amended the
grievance on August 7, 2017. Id. at 11.
August 16, 2017, the Warden denied Petitioner's request
for administrative remedy because the “Department acted
within the scope of its rules [and Petitioner's]
disciplinary report remains legitimate.” Id.
at 8. On August 21, 2017, Petitioner filed an appeal from the
warden's denial of Petitioner's request for
administrative remedy. Id. at 9. On August 30, 2017,
the Warden denied Petitioner's administrative appeal.
Id. at 10. On August 29, 2017, Petitioner had filed
an amendment to his appeal. Id. at 18. On September
8, 2017, the Warden denied the amended administrative appeal
because Petitioner had not “provided [the warden's
office] with a copy of the formal grievance filed at the
institutional level as required.” Id. at 19.
Petitioner did not file any ...