Armando Arce v. Chief Judge Timothy D. Osterhaus

── Armando Arce v. Chief Judge Timothy D. Osterhaus ── Court: Supreme Court of Florida Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2025-1811 ____________ ARMANDO ARCE, Petitioner, vs. CHIEF JUDGE TIMOTHY D. OSTERHAUS, Respondent. April 23, 2026 PER CURIAM. Armando Arce, a pro se litigant, filed in the First District Court of Appeal a petition for writ of mandamus and two motions to stay, all of which were transferred to this Court. The petition and motions raised issues concerning two domestic relations cases litigated in the First Judicial Circuit (Okaloosa County) in case numbers 462023DR002903CXXXXX and 462023DR004081CXXXXX.1 In the mandamus petition, Arce sought an order compelling 1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. Chief Judge Timothy D. Osterhaus of the First District Court of Appeal to remove circuit court Judge Jennie Kinsey from exercising any “administrative supervision” or authority over cases in the First Judicial Circuit. 2 Arce claimed that this was not an attempt to recuse Judge Kinsey from a specific case. Rather, his asserted basis for relief was the fact that Judge Kinsey’s mother was once the subject of a Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission case. See In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2003). In addition, Arce sought to stay all proceedings related to case numbers 462023DR002903CXXXXX and 462023DR004081CXXXXX in both the circuit court and the First District Court of Appeal, notwithstanding the fact that all cases in the district court were closed. On January 16, 2026, we denied mandamus relief and expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Arce. Arce v. Chief Judge Timothy D. Osterhaus, No. SC2025-1811 (Fla. Jan. 16, 2026); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that Arce has failed to show cause why he 2. Judge Kinsey is the presiding judge in Arce’s ongoing domestic relations cases. -2- should not be barred, and we sanction him as set forth below. Arce has filed numerous cases in this Court and in the First District Court of Appeal pertaining to his underlying domestic relations cases. The First District barred Arce from filing any pro se pleadings related to case number 462023DR002903CXXXXX. Arce v. Arce, No. 1D2025-1602 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 24, 2025). It then barred him from all future pro se filings in that court. Arce v. Arce, No. 1D2025-1404 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 18, 2025). Including the mandamus petition in this case, Arce has filed fifteen pro se extraordinary petitions or notices to invoke with this Court since 2024, all related to Okaloosa County case numbers 462023DR002903CXXXXX and 462023DR004081CXXXXX. 3 The 3. See Arce v. Arce, No. SC2024-1822 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2025) (mandamus dismissed); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-0771 (Fla. June 9, 2025) (mandamus transferred); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-0706 (Fla. June 27, 2025) (habeas denied); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1055 (Fla. Aug. 12, 2025) (prohibition denied); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1322 (Fla. Sept. 2, 2025) (notice to invoke dismissed); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1337 (Fla. Sept. 3, 2025) (notice to invoke dismissed); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1491 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2025) (notice to invoke dismissed); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1492 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2025) (notice to invoke dismissed); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1381 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2025) (habeas denied); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1653 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2025) (appeal transferred); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1652 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2025) (appeal transferred); Arce v. Arce, No. SC2025-1608 (Fla. Oct. 23, -3- Court has never granted the relief sought in any of those cases; his petitions and notices were either denied, dismissed, or transferred— onl