Title: Roy A. Day v. State Of Florida  (order)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-2712
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 5, 2005

Supreme Court of Florida 
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2005 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AMENDED ORDER 
 
CASE NO.:  SC02-2712 
 
Lower Tribunal No.:  02-3017CFAES 
 
ROY A. DAY 
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA 
Appellant 
 
Appellee 
 
 
 
By order of this Court dated August 18, 2004, this case was transferred to  
the Second District Court of Appeal for consideration as a certiorari proceeding.  
Day filed a motion for rehearing with this Court challenging the transfer.  In its 
November 1, 2004, order denying the motion for rehearing, the Court noted that 
the instant case was the thirty-eighth pro se case initiated by Roy A. Day in the 
Court since 1989.  The Court further noted that it has never granted Day the relief 
he has requested in any of the various proceedings.  See Day v. Styers, 741 So. 2d 
1135 (Fla. Aug. 3, 1999) (No. 96149) (dismissing review proceeding for lack of 
jurisdiction); Day v. Day, 707 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Feb. 11, 1998) (No. 92313)  
(same); Day v. State, 697 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. July 8, 1997) (No. 90910) (same); Day 
v. Day, 692 So. 2d 185 (Fla. Apr. 4, 1997) (No. 90187) (same); Day v. State, 680 
So. 2d 422 (Fla. Aug. 30, 1996) (No. 88822) (same); Day v. State, 675 So. 2d 926 
(Fla. May 17, 1996) (No. 88024) (same); Day v. State, 666 So. 2d 142 (Fla. Dec. 6, 
1995) (No. 86917) (same); Day v. State, 664 So. 2d 248 (Fla. Nov. 15, 1995) (No. 
 
 
2
86850) (same); Day v. Day, 661 So. 2d 823 (Fla. Aug. 25, 1995) (No. 86294)  
(same); Day v. State, 661 So. 2d 823 (Fla. Aug. 24, 1995) (No. 86293) (same); 
Day v. Day, 658 So. 2d 990 (Fla. May 10, 1995) (No. 85613) (same); Day v. State, 
659 So. 2d 270 (Fla. May 2, 1995) (No. 85590) (same); Day v. Each and All 
Florida Public Utilities, 657 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. Apr. 11, 1995) (No. 85497) (same); 
Day v. State, 654 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Mar. 22, 1995) (No. 85365) (same); Day v. Day, 
621 So. 2d 431 (Fla. May 11, 1993) (No. 81749) (same); Day v. Johnson, 569 So. 
2d 1278 (Fla. Sept. 4, 1990) (No. 76486) (same); Day v. GAF Corp., No. 75,148 
(Fla. Dec. 19, 1989) (same); Day v. Hanlon, 545 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. May 22, 1989) 
(No. 74167) (same); see also Day v. Florida Dep't of Health, 817 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 
Apr. 17, 2002) (No. SC01-2120) (denying petition for writ of mandamus); Day v. 
Florida Dep't of Health, 817 So. 2d 846 (Fla. Apr. 17, 2002) (No. SC01-1739) 
(same); Day v. Florida Dep't of Health, 817 So. 2d 846 (Fla. Apr. 17, 2002) (No. 
SC01-1643) (denying in part and dismissing in part petition for writ of 
mandamus); Day v. Styers, 817 So. 2d 846 (Fla. Apr. 17, 2002) (No. SC01-1535) 
(same); Day v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 805 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Jan. 16, 2002) (No. 
SC01-1358) (declining to accept review in discretionary review proceeding); Day 
v. Vinson, 722 So. 2d 192 (Fla. Aug. 12, 1998) (No. 93,325) (dismissing case as a 
sanction for petitioner's failure to comply with a prior order of the Court); Day v. 
Rice, 689 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. Feb. 20, 1997) (No. 89637) (denying petition for writ 
 
 
3
of habeas corpus); Day v. State, 687 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dec. 23, 1996) (No. 89392) 
(same); Day v. Singletary, 678 So. 2d 337 (Fla. July 8, 1996) (No. 88009) (same); 
Day v. Singletary, 668 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Jan. 23, 1996) (No. 86979) (same); Day v. 
Singletary, 662 So. 2d 341 (Fla. Sept. 20, 1995) (No. 86371) (same); Day v. 
Deason, 629 So. 2d 132 (Fla. Oct. 12, 1993) (Nos. 81991 & 82082) (dismissing 
cases as a sanction for noncompliance with court order); Day v. Day, 629 So. 2d 
132 (Fla. Oct. 12, 1993) (No. 82012) (same); Day v. Deason, 623 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 
June 3, 1993) (No. 81472) (same); Day v. Deason, 614 So. 2d 502 (Fla. Jan. 27, 
1993) (Nos. 81036, 81037 & 81038) (granting appellee's motion to dismiss and 
dismissing appeal); Day v. Beard, 613 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Jan. 5, 1993) (No. 80722) 
(same);  
 
Because Day has abused the processes of this Court with his numerous 
filings, the Court in its denial order found that a limitation on Day's ability to 
initiate any further pro se proceedings in this Court may be necessary in order to 
further the constitutional right of access of other litigants in that it would permit 
this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims 
filed by others.  See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (noting that 
"[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or 
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources").  
Accordingly, in the November 1, 2004, denial order, Roy A. Day was directed to 
 
 
4
show cause why this Court should not impose a sanction upon him for his 
litigiousness, such as directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future 
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by him unless 
signed by a member of The Florida Bar.   
 
On November 4, 2004, Day responded to the Court's order.  In his response, 
Day flaunted his disregard for this Court by making insulting and offensive 
statements:  
 
It is self-evident that the November 1, 2004 show cause order  
 
issued by this "SCDUILA" (sleazy, corrupt, dishonest, unethical,  
 
illegal licensed attorney) court is a sham of the first order and issued  
 
solely for the purpose to further conceal and cover-up the illegal,  
 
corrupt, dishonest, and unethical conduct of this licensed attorney  
 
court of law . . . . THE PRESENT "licensed attorney" COURTS  
 
OF LAW ARE "MONEY COURTS" AND NOT "COURTS OF  
 
JUSTICE!"  The aforesaid "MONEY COURTS," AND THE  
 
ASSOCIATED "KING AND QUEEN-PRIVILEGE CLASS- 
 
"licensed attorneys," are being protected by "MYRMIDONS,"  
 
specifically, the "lackey, obsequious, toady, servile" ("L-O-T-S")  
 
bailiffs, U.S. Marshals, and other law enforcement "spineless cowards- 
 
peer pressure-government employees" (the aforesaid "spineless  
 
cowards-peer pressure-government employees" make one dollar  
 
an hour, and the licensed attorneys make $300 an hour-speaking  
 
of being idiots, stupid, morons, and the list goes on and on and on),  
 
specifically, the aforesaid "L-O-T-S" attack the poor citizens using  
 
"licensed attorney law" but will not attack the KING AND QUEEN-  
 
PRIVILEGE CLASS-"licensed attorneys," who make $300 an hour.   
 
IT IS AN "ECONOMIC WAR" and "licensed attorneys," and their  
 
co-conspirators, MUST BE STOPPED BY ALL MEANS AND  
 
COST AVAILABLE!"   
 
 
5
Further, although the purpose of Day's response should have been to persuade the 
Court that he should not be sanctioned, he even went so far as to launch personal 
attacks upon members of the Court.   
 
The Court will not allow its judicial processes to be misused by Day to 
malign and insult those persons and institutions which have been unfortunate 
enough to come in contact with him.   Further, this is not the first time Day has 
filed scandalous pleadings with the Court.  This Court has the authority and the 
duty to prevent the misuse and abuse of the judicial system. It is clear that Day is 
an abusive litigant, and he is unable to maintain the bare minimum standard of 
decorum and respect for the judicial system that all litigants must have when filing 
court pleadings and seeking court rulings.  Therefore, the Court has determined  
that Day should be barred from filing any further pro se pleadings with the Court. 
While the Court is cognizant of the access to courts implications of refusing to  
accept any more filings from Day unless they are signed by an attorney, the Court 
is concerned that failure to impose this sanction will handicap the Court's ability to 
timely review the many other petitions filed by inmates and other petitioners who 
have not abused the system. 
 
Accordingly, in order to preserve the dignity of the judicial system, and to 
prevent the waste of precious judicial resources, the Clerk of this Court is hereby 
instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, 
 
 
6
or other filings submitted by Roy A. Day unless signed by a member of The 
Florida Bar. 
 
It is so ordered.   
 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
tc 
Served: 
 
HON. JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK 
ROY A. DAY 
HON. CHARLES J. CRIST, JR. 
HON. DAVID A DEMERS, CHIEF JUDGE 
HON. JED PITTMAN, CLERK