Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC2024-0138

____________

DAVEN O. BOWDEN,

Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

June 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Daven O. Bowden, a pre-trial detainee, filed a pro se 

“Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” seeking relief in his 

pending case.1 We dismissed the petition, retained jurisdiction, and 

directed Bowden to show cause why he should not be sanctioned 

for his repeated misuse of our limited resources. Bowden v. State, 

2024 WL 1433164 (Fla. Apr. 2, 2024); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) 

(Sanctions; Court’s Motion). After considering Bowden’s response, 

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const.
- 2 -

we now find that Bowden has failed to show cause why he should 

not be barred, and we sanction him as set forth below.

Bowden began filing petitions with the Court in 2007. He has 

filed over 28 petitions, which pertained to several different criminal 

cases.2 We have never granted the relief sought in any of Bowden’s 

filings, which have all been denied, dismissed, or transferred to 

another court for consideration. This petition is no exception. 

Bowden filed this mandamus petition seeking to discharge counsel 

and proceed pro se in Okaloosa County case number 

462023CF001998XXXAFX and to have his trial judge disqualified. 

Bowden had previously filed petitions requesting the same relief, 

which this Court transferred to the trial court for consideration. 

Because the Court determined that it would be a waste of judicial 

resources to transfer this petition to the same court again, we 

2. Across his numerous petitions, Bowden has cited seven 

different lower court case numbers, including: Fourteenth Judicial 

Circuit Court (Washington County) case numbers

672017CF000298CFAXMX, 672000CF000124CFAXMX, 

672000CF000125CFAXMX, 672011CF000094CFAXMX, and 

672011CF000085CFAXMX; Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (Brevard 

County) case number 052018CF055324AXXXXX; and First Judicial 

Circuit (Okaloosa County) case number 462023CF001998XXXAFX.
- 3 -

dismissed the petition. However, we expressly retained jurisdiction 

for the consideration of sanctions and directed Bowden to show 

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

requests for relief in this Court.

Bowden filed a response, in which he asserts that he has a 

constitutional right to access this Court at any time. He also claims 

that his petitions have been meritorious and denies that he has 

abused his right to file pleadings in this Court. Upon consideration 

of Bowden’s response, we find that he has failed to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, based on Bowden’s 

history of filing pro se petitions and requests for relief that are 

meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s review, we now 

find that he has abused this 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”). Bowden 

refuses to acknowledge his repeated misuse of this Court’s 

resources. We are therefore convinced that if not restrained, 
- 4 -

Bowden will continue to abuse the judicial process and burden this 

Court (and thereby harm other litigants) with frivolous and 

meritless filings.

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

future pleadings, filings, papers, or other requests for relief

submitted by Daven O. Bowden, unless they are signed by a

member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Henceforth, Bowden

may only petition the Court through the assistance of counsel 

whenever such counsel determines that the proceeding may have 

merit and can be filed in good faith.

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 – Mandamus

Daven O. Bowden, pro se, Crestview, Florida,

for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent