Title: Daven O. Bowden v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC2024-0138
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 2024

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