Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 2, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0806
Lower Tribunal No. 21-9053-CA-01
Walter L. Wright,
Appellant,
vs.
JPay LLC and Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary of
the Florida Department of Corrections,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge.
Walter L. Wright, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Geoffrey Seifert, Assistant Attorney General (Tallahassee), for appellee Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections.
Colodny Fass, and Matthew Coleman Scarfone, for appellee JPay LLC.
Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
PER CURIAM.
In 2022, Appellant Walter L. Wright brought a civil action against
Florida Department of Corrections and JPAY, LLC. The trial court referred
the parties to binding arbitration and dismissed Wright’s complaint with
prejudice as to Florida Department of Corrections. Thereafter, Wright filed
four subsequent appeals and petitions pro se. 1 Each was unsuccessful.
On July 21, 2026, Wright was ordered to show cause as to why he
should not be prohibited from submitting any further pro se filings with this
Court. 2 This Court warned him that “[a]bsent a showing of good cause, the
Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal will be directed to refuse any filing
unless it has been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed
member of The Florida Bar in good standing.” Upon careful review of
Wright’s response, we conclude that he has failed to show good cause as to
1
See Case No. 3D2023-1072, Case No. 3D2025-1602, Case No. 3D2025-2334, Case No. 3D2026-0806.
2
In Case No. 3D2016-2478, we previously barred Wright from filing “any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences,” and directed the Clerk of this Court to refuse any such filings unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar.
2
why he should not be prohibited from continuing to represent himself in this
appeal.
Exercising this Court’s inherent authority to determine whether a pro
se litigant is abusing the judicial process, we now prohibit Wright from filing
any further pro se motions, pleadings, petitions, notices, or any filings with
this Court, and require that any such filings be made by an attorney licensed
to practice law in Florida. See Jimenez v. State, 196 So. 3d 499, 501 (Fla.
3d DCA 2016); see also Brown v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 319 So. 3d 81, 84 (Fla.
3d DCA 2021) (affirming the county court’s determination of an appellant's
vexatious litigant status where the county’s motion properly set forth “‘five or
more civil actions’ which had been ‘commenced, prosecuted or maintained
pro se’ by [the appellant] ‘over the immediately preceding 5-year period[.]’”
(quoting § 68.093(2)(d)1., Fla. Stat. (2019))); Hasanati v. State, 117 So. 3d
1157, 1158 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (finding that the appellant “abused the
judicial process through his repeated and meritless pro se appeals and
petitions” when he filed “[i]n less than three years . . . a total of seventeen
separate pro se appeals or petitions,” warranting a ban on further pro se
filings).
3
We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to
accept any such papers unless they have been reviewed and signed by an
attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing.
This order shall take effect immediately. No motions for rehearing shall
be entertained.
So ordered.
4