Background
Cotara Christina Farrington, proceeding pro se in a custody dispute, sought certiorari review of two circuit court orders. The first, entered sua sponte on June 12, 2026, limited her future filings and emails to the court. The second denied her motion for rehearing.
Farrington argued that the circuit court imposed the limitations without first giving her notice and an opportunity to be heard. She maintained that this denial of due process constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District agreed with Farrington. It concluded that restricting her future filings and emails was, in essence, a sanction, and the limited record showed that the circuit court imposed it sua sponte without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
The court held that this procedure departed from the essential requirements of law. It further determined that the complete denial of due process constituted irreparable harm subject to certiorari review. The court therefore granted the petition and quashed both the limitation order and the order denying rehearing.
Key Takeaways
- An order restricting a litigant’s future filings and communications with the court operates, in essence, as a sanction.
- A trial court violates due process when it imposes such restrictions sua sponte without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- A complete denial of notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes irreparable harm permitting certiorari review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that procedural due process applies before a court restricts a party’s future access to filing papers or communicating with the court. When those restrictions are imposed without notice and an opportunity to respond, certiorari may provide immediate relief because the resulting harm cannot be adequately remedied later.