Marts v. Inch

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

Case No. 4:19cv054-RH/CAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

September 3, 2019

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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. SeePettway 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 S. Ct. 2029 (2019).

At the court's direction, the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court sent a letter to the General Counsel for the Florida Department of Corrections on December 20, 2018, stating in full:

At the Direction of the Court, please find attached a certified copy of the opinion issued in Sidney Marts, Jr. v. Julie L. Jones, etc., Case No. SC18-1163, issued by this Court on December 20, 2018.

ECF No. 12-1 at 8 (Exhibit A to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss). The Department of Corrections initiated disciplinary proceedings based on the Florida Supreme Court decision. ECF No. 12-1 at 2. Petitioner was notified of the charges prior to the hearing, was offered but declined staff assistance, and was present at the hearing. Id. The hearing resulted in Petitioner being found guilty and receiving disciplinary confinement of fifteen days and loss of fifteen days accrued gain time. ECF No. 12-1 at 3. The report was reviewed and approved by the warden. ECF No. 12-1 at 3. The report notified Petitioner that he had fifteen days to appeal the decision and discipline. Id.

As noted in the Florida Supreme Court's opinion, the letter was sent pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (20180, which states:

944.279. Disciplinary procedures applicable to prisoner for filing frivolous or malicious actions or bringing false information before court—

(1) At any time, and upon its own motion or on motion of a party, a court may conduct an inquiry into whether any action or appeal brought by a prisoner was brought in good faith. 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, which is filed after June 30, 1996, or to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding, which is filed after September 30, 2004, 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. The court shall issue a written finding and direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the department as provided in s. 944.09.

§ 944.279(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added).

Petitioner brought a similar claim challenging a different disciplinary action based on referral by a Florida court of a finding of abuse of judicial resources. In Marts v. Jones, No. 3:17cv651-LC/CAS, 2018 WL 3524846 (N.D. Fla. July 13, 2018), the Respondent moved to dismiss alleging that Petitioner failed to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner argued that he was prohibited from exhausting remedies because he was barred in sanction orders from pro se filings pertaining to his criminal case due to abuse of judicial resources. This Court dismissed the § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies, stating:

Petitioner's claim that state exhaustion was unavailable is not supported by the record. First, although Petitioner was prohibited from filing pro se motions in the state trial court in Escambia County and in the First DCA in Case No. 2007-CF-06067A, he was not prohibited from filing pro se petitions in either court challenging the DOC's disciplinary actions. See Ex. B at 17; Marts v. State, 59 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). In its order prohibiting future pro se filings, the state trial court specifically found "that [Petitioner] . . . should be barred from future pro se filings in the instant case" and prohibited Petitioner from filing "in this Court in this matter" unless his petitions were reviewed by a licensed attorney. Ex. B at 17 (emphasis added). The state trial court did not bar Petitioner from filing entirely, but specifically "in this matter," referring to Case No. 2007-CF-06067A. Id. In Marts v. State, the First DCA explicitly states, "[Petitioner] is barred from future pro se filings concerning Escambia County Circuit Court case number 2007-CF-6067." 59 So. 3d at 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Therefore, Petitioner had the opportunity to file a petition challenging his DR and its resulting sanctions in the state trial court as well as the First DCA.

Second, Petitioner was not

...