Daryl A. Sanders v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: April 13, 2023
• Docket: SC2022-1408
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2022-1408 ____________

DARYL A. SANDERS, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

April 13, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Daryl A. Sanders, a pretrial detainee in the custody of the

Volusia County Jail, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus

with this Court. 1 We denied the petition, expressly retained

jurisdiction, and directed Sanders to show cause why sanctions

should not be imposed against him for his abuse of the Court’s

limited resources. See Sanders v. State, No. SC2022-1408, 2023

WL 128261 (Fla. Jan. 9, 2023); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)

(Sanctions; Court’s Motion). Having considered his response to the

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. show cause order, we find that Sanders has failed to show cause

why he should not be pro se barred, and we sanction him as set

forth below.

Sanders was convicted of multiple offenses in the Circuit

Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit (Volusia County). He was

sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, to be followed by a

period of probation upon his release. He was later arrested in

August 2022 for violating the terms and conditions associated with

his probation.

Since 2020, Sanders has engaged in a vexatious pattern of

filing meritless pro se requests for relief in this Court pertaining to a

multitude of civil and criminal cases filed by or against him.

Including the petition in this case, Sanders has filed 21 pro se

petitions with this Court.2 We have never granted Sanders the relief

sought in any of his filings. Rather, we have denied, dismissed, or

transferred each of his petitions. Sanders’ petition in this case is no

exception. In the petition, Sanders claimed that the Volusia County

2. See Sanders v. State, No. SC2022-1408, 2023 WL 128261 (Fla. Jan. 9, 2023); Sanders v. Chitwood, No. SC2023-0032, 2023 WL 126427 (Fla. Jan. 9, 2023).

-2- Jail was refusing to allow a notary to sign his Determination of

Indigency form, and he sought an order compelling the jail to

notarize the form. Nowhere in his petition, however, did Sanders

even attempt to demonstrate that he possessed a clear legal right to

the relief requested, as required by our case law. See Huffman v.

State, 813 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2000). We therefore denied the petition

and directed Sanders to show cause why he should not be barred

from filing any further pro se requests for relief.

In response to the show cause order, Sanders contends that

all his filings had merit and that he exhausted every remedy before

coming to this Court. But if this were true, Sanders would have

sought relief in this Court through the normal appellate process

rather than through extraordinary writ petitions. Sanders’ inability

to obtain the relief he seeks does not justify his repeated misuse of

this Court’s limited judicial resources. Although he expresses

remorse and states that he will abstain from further filings in this

Court unless “legally necessary,” we are not convinced that Sanders

will in fact abandon his practice of filing meritless or wholly

inappropriate requests for relief.

-3- Thus, we find that he has failed to show cause why he should

not be sanctioned for his abusive conduct. Therefore, based on

Sanders’ 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 the 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, Sanders will continue to burden the

Court’s resources, as evidenced by his incessant filings despite

being cautioned in 2021 that repetitive requests for the same relief

or the submission of frivolous or meritless filings may result in

sanctions. See Sanders v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. SC2021-

1484, 2021 WL 6066818 (Fla. Dec. 22, 2021).

Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Daryl A.

Sanders, unless such filings are signed by a member in good

standing of The Florida Bar. -4- No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by

this Court.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Mandamus

Daryl A. Sanders, pro se, Daytona Beach, Florida,

for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

-5-