Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marts v. Inch

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division

September 3, 2019

SIDNEY MARTS, Petitioner,
v.
MARK S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On or about January 23, 2019, Petitioner Sidney Marts, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. An amended petition was directed, which was filed on February 6, 2019 (by the mailbox rule). ECF Nos. 6, 8. On June 4, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 12.

         The matter was referred to the undersigned United States 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, the undersigned concludes that Petitioner has not demonstrated entitlement to proceed under § 2241 and this petition should be dismissed.

         Background

         Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Institution. See ECF No. 10. He is in custody under sentences imposed by the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida, in case number 2007-CF-6067, having been convicted of fraudulent use of personal identification, uttering a forged instrument, grand theft, and resisting an officer without violence. ECF No. 8 at 2. Petitioner has previously sought relief for various complaints in petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See, e.g., Marts v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 4:18cv552-RH/CJK; Marts v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:18cv2378-MCR/MJF; Marts v. Jones, No. 3:17cv651-LC/CAS; Marts v. Jones, No. 3:17cv260-LC/GRJ; Marts v. Jones, No. 4:16cv783-WS/CAS; Marts v. United States of America, No. 3:16cv587-MCR/CJK; Marts v. Jones, No. 3:16cv453-LC/EMT; Marts v. Jones, No. 3:15cv399-RV/EMT.[1]

         In his amended petition, Petitioner requests the Court to direct Respondent to remove a disciplinary report from his inmate record and to reinstate gain time forfeited as a result of the disciplinary conviction. ECF No. 8 at 4. He alleges that the Florida Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or other authority to order enforcement of disciplinary sanctions when it notified the Department of Corrections that Petitioner had been sanctioned by that Court for abusing judicial resources pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2018). He also alleges that the Florida Supreme Court's order denies him access to courts. ECF No. 8 at 4. See Marts v. Jones, 260 So.3d 1057 (Fla. 2018) (SC18-1163), ECF No. 12-1 at 9-14, [2] and Marts v. Jones, No. SC18-1679, 2018 WL 6263237, at *1 (Fla. Nov. 29, 2018).

         Respondent moves to dismiss the § 2241 petition on the ground that it challenges prison disciplinary action without having exhausted administrative and state court remedies. ECF No. 12 at 1. Petitioner responds that the petition is not restricted to a challenge to disciplinary action, but is challenging the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to prohibit him from further filings in that court that are not signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. He further challenges the authority of the state court to refer that decision to the correctional institution. ECF No. 13 at 6.

         Analysis

         In a decision issued December 20, 2018, in case number SC18-1163, the Florida Supreme Court stated:

Since September 17, 2008, Marts has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court. Including the petition in the instant case, Marts has filed twenty-nine pro se petitions or notices with this Court since September 17, 2008. The Court has disposed of twenty-four of these filings to date, not including the petition in this case. Additionally, three of Petitioner's filings were voluntarily dismissed and one is currently pending before the Court. This Court has never granted Marts the relief sought in any of his filings here. Each of the twenty-four petitions and notices was denied, dismissed, or transferred to another court for consideration; his petition in this case is no exception.
. . . .
Therefore, based on Marts' 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 this 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 taken, Marts will continue to burden this Court's resources. We further conclude that Marts' 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. (2018).
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Sidney Marts Jr. that are related to case number 172007CF006067[], unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Marts' petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2018), to forward a copy of this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections' institution or facility in which Marts is incarcerated.

Marts v. Jones, 260 So.3d 1057, 1058-59 (Fla. 2018) (emphasis added), cert. denied sub nom. Marts v. Inch, 139 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.