Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC2024-0323

____________

KENGI N. MERRITT,

Petitioner,

vs.

SECRETARY, DEPTARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

August 22, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Kengi N. Merritt, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se 

petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court.1 We denied the 

petition, expressly retained jurisdiction, and directed Merritt to 

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for 

his abuse of the Court’s limited resources. See Merritt v. Sec’y, 

Dept. of Corr., No. SC2024-0323, 2024 WL 1827235 (Fla. Apr. 26, 

2024); Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). Having 

received no response to the show cause order, we find that Merritt 

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
- 2 -

has failed to show cause why he should not be pro se barred, and 

we sanction him as set forth below.

Merritt was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit (Palm Beach County) on three counts of sexual 

battery on a person less than 12 years of age, two counts of 

attempted sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age, two 

counts of lewd or lascivious molestation, and one count of lewd or 

lascivious exhibition (case number 502010CF008673AXXXMB). He 

was sentenced in 2011 to life imprisonment on the sexual battery 

convictions and to lesser sentences on the remaining counts. The 

Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments and 

sentences in 2013. Merritt v. State, 109 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2013).

Since 2022, Merritt has filed six petitions for writ of habeas 

corpus with this Court, all challenging his convictions and 

sentences in case number 502010CF008673AXXXMB. We have 

never granted Merritt the relief sought in any of his filings, all of 

which we have dismissed as unauthorized or denied. Merritt’s 

habeas petition in this case is no exception. In the petition, Merritt 

claimed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 
- 3 -

his case due to a defective charging instrument, which was identical 

to the claim he raised in two previous habeas petitions. We 

therefore denied the petition as successive and directed Merritt to 

show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro 

se requests for relief.

Merritt did not respond to the order to show cause and, in so 

doing, has failed to offer any justification for his repeated misuse of 

this Court’s limited judicial resources. Thus, we find that he has 

failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. 

Therefore, based on Merritt’s history of filing multiple 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”). It is apparent 

that if no action is taken, Merritt will continue to burden the 

Court’s resources. We further conclude that Merritt’s habeas 
- 4 -

petition filed in this case is a frivolous proceeding brought before 

the Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).

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

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Kengi N. 

Merritt that are related to case number 502010CF008673AXXXMB, 

unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The 

Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we find Merritt’s petition to be 

frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 

944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2023), to forward a copy of this 

opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or 

facility in which Merritt is incarcerated.

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by 

this Court.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, 

FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus

Kengi N. Merritt, pro se, Arcadia, Florida,

for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent