Title: Sanders v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

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.   
- 2 - 
 
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). 
- 3 - 
 
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. 
- 4 - 
 
 
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. 
- 5 - 
 
 
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