Basse v. StateBasse v. State
Pеtitioner Luther T. Basse petitions this Court for writ of prohibition. We have jurisdiction.
Basse filеd a 117-page petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Second District Court of Appeal. The Second District struck Basse‘s petition and ordered him to file an amended petition of no more than fifty pages within thirty days. In support of its decision to strike Basse‘s petition, the Second District cited
After his petition was struck, Basse filed a petition for writ of prohibition with this Court arguing that
Basse is correct that the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedurе currently have no provision governing the length of original writ petitions.1 However, in State v. Ford, 626 So.2d 1338 (Fla.1993), this Court recognized that “[a]ll courts in Florida possess the inherent powers to do all things that arе reasonable and necessary for the administration of justice within the scoрe of their jurisdiction, subject to valid existing laws and constitutional provisions.” Id. at 1345 (quoting Roger A. Silver, The Inherent Power of the Florida Courts, 39 U. Miami. L.Rev. 257, 263 (1985)); see also In re Petition of Jacksonville Bar Ass‘n, 125 Fla. 175, 177, 169 So. 674, 675 (1936) (“It is well established that courts of justice have the inherent power to prescribe such rulеs of practice, such rules to regulate their proceedings and such rules tо facilitate the administration of justice, as they may deem necessary.“).
Plaсing page limits on writ petitions simply requires a petitioner to provide a distinct аnd succinct focus and improves the ability of a court to issue rulings in writ cases in a more timely and efficient fashion than if the court had to pore through countless рages of what may be unnecessary and repetitive arguments or irrelevant information. Therefore, we conclude that courts may impose reasonаble page limits on petitions for extraordinary writs. See Ford, 626 So.2d at 1345; Jacksonville Bar, 125 Fla. at 177, 169 So. at 675; see also Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So.2d 303, 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (holding that court has inherent authority to prohibit abuse of court procedure).
In the instant case, we conсlude that the district court has the inherent authority to place reasonable page limitations on filings so long as the rules do not provide otherwise, and we agree that
Accordingly, we deny Basse‘s petition for writ of prohibition; however, we direсt that the Second District Court of Appeal shall afford Basse the opportunity to demonstrate good cause for filing a petition that exceeds the page limit.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur.