128 So. 3d 260
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ardis was a Pensacola State College (PSC) professor who was suspended and then fired after submitting a degree from an online diploma mill; an arbitrator and the trial court upheld his termination for misconduct in office.
- Ardis proceeded pro se in appeals and filed numerous post-opinion motions raising meritless claims of bias and procedural unfairness; this Court issued a per curiam affirmance on February 14, 2013 and a mandate on April 4, 2013.
- After issuance of the mandate, Ardis repeatedly filed additional motions despite Court orders directing him not to file further papers; the Court struck several filings as sanctionable and issued show-cause proceedings.
- Ardis sought to recall the mandate more than 120 days after issuance, alleging PSC withheld public records relevant to his case and asking the appellate court to reopen the matter.
- The Court found (1) it lacked jurisdiction to recall the mandate outside the term in which it was issued and (2) Ardis’s motion was frivolous and in violation of prior orders, warranting sanctions restricting his ability to proceed pro se in this Court on matters related to his firing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ardis) | Defendant's Argument (PSC / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to recall mandate | Court should recall mandate and reopen case based on newly alleged withheld records | Mandate was issued in January term; appellate court lacks authority to recall beyond that term | Court: No jurisdiction to recall mandate; motion frivolous |
| Timeliness / statutory basis for reopening | Relied on §59.29 (amend appellate proceedings in furtherance of justice) to justify reopening | §59.29 is inapplicable; recall of mandate governed by term limits and statutory rules on mandates | Court: §59.29 irrelevant; cannot confer jurisdiction to recall mandate after term expired |
| Merit of alleged withheld public records | Withheld records were crucial and justify setting aside arbitration | Court noted lower tribunal already addressed petition; appellate court cannot reopen on these grounds now | Court: Did not reach merits; procedurally barred due to lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness |
| Sanctions / pro se restriction for excessive filings | Ardis continued filing in defiance of orders, claiming entitlement to relief and criticizing Court | PSC urged enforcement of prior orders; Court emphasized wasted resources and repeated warnings | Court: Denied motion, struck filings, and barred Ardis from proceeding pro se in this Court on matters related to Escambia County Case No. 2011-CA-2412 unless represented by counsel (30 days to retain counsel). |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges of Dist. Court of Appeal, Fifth Dist., 405 So.2d 980 (Fla. 1981) (appellate court may recall mandate only during the term it was issued)
- Ardis v. Pensacola State College, 123 So.3d 557 (Fla. 2013) (supreme court denial of review of underlying matter)
- Ardis v. Pensacola State College, 133 S.Ct. 2836 (U.S. 2013) (Supreme Court denied certiorari)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (courts’ inherent authority to curb vexatious or excessive litigation)
- Bolton v. SE Property Holdings, LLC, 127 So.3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Spencer order required before prohibiting pro se filings where no prior notice/opportunity was given)
- In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Judicial Admin. and Fla. Rules of App. Pro., 125 So.3d 743 (Fla. 2013) (rule amendments addressing recall of mandates and appellate procedure)