TYRONE RAHMING, APPELLANT,
v.
T.H. BIGHAM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rahming, an inmate in administrative confinement for over a year, appealed the summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition alleging lack of due process hearings. The court reversed, holding that summary dismissal was improper where the inmate made specific allegations that, if true, would establish violations of administrative code and constitutional due process rights.
The court held that summary dismissal was improper and reversed the dismissal, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court must determine whether Rahming exhausted administrative remedies, whether due process violations occurred at the point of confinement, and whether the process provided during confinement met constitutional standards.
[1] A summary dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be reversed and the matter remanded where the prisoner makes specific allegations which, if true, would…
[2] A court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner makes specific allegations that, if true, would entitle them to rel…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a summary dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus must be reversed and the matter remanded where the prisoner made specific allegations which, if true, would establish that the Department of Corrections failed to comply with its own rules and due process requirements in a disciplinary matter”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing summary dismissals of habeas corpus petitions, drawing from Bagley v. Brierton
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRahming, an inmate in Florida State Prison, has been in administrative confinement for more than one year. He alleged that he was not given a hearing …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Confinement cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Rahming appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that his petition did state a claim upon which relief should be granted and that the court erred in entering an order of dismissal without holding an evidentiary hearing. We agree and reverse.
Rahming, an inmate in Florida State Prison, has been in administrative confinement for more than one year. He alleges that he was not given a hearing prior to being placed in administrative confinement, and he also alleged that prison officials violated his due process rights after he was transferred to administrative confinement by failing to provide him with a hearing to determine whether he should be returned to the open prison population.
Fla.Admin.Code Rule 33-3.10081(6)(a) provides “the classification team will review inmates in administrative confinement every week for the first two months and at least every 30 days thereafter.” The goal of the classification team is to return the inmate to the open prison population as soon as it can be done safely. In this case we have no record to review. We do not know whether Rahming’s confinement was reviewed according to administrative code requirements or whether the review, if given, satisfied due process.
In Bagley v. Brierton, 362 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this court held that a summary dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus must be reversed and the matter remanded where the prisoner made specific allegations which, if true, would establish that the Department of Corrections failed to comply with its own rules and due process requirements in a disciplinary matter. On remand the trial court should grant an evidentiary hearing and first decide whether Rahming has exhausted his administrative remedies. Then, the court should decide whether prison officials violated his United States and Florida constitutional due process rights by failing to provide a hearing prior to placing Rahming in admin istrative confinement. Finally, the court should determine whether the process provided by the state while Rahming was in confinement met due process and, if so, whether that process was followed. If the process does not meet due process requirements or the process was not followed, then Rahming’s due process rights have been violated and he is entitled to relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions for further proceedings.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Dugger, 613 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…While these allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action, Guess v. Barton, 599 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Van Poyck v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Rahming v. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), Moore’s petition was facially insufficient in that it failed to allege that he had exhausted all available administrative remedies, Polk v. Crockett, 379 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Taylor v. Wainwright, 418 So. 2d 1095 (Fla…
-
Taylor v. Barton, 556 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…Appellant further alleged he has exhausted his administrative remedies. If these allegations are true, the Department of Corrections would appear to have violated its rules, and so summary denial of the petition was inappropriate. Rahming v. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. SMITH, THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.…
-
Boudreaux v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…Corrections has failed to comply with due process requirements. Therefore, summary dismissal of his petition without even the holding of an evidentiary hearing was error. See Williams v. Dugger, 573 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Eahming v. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); and Bagley v. Brierton, 362 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. ERVIN, J., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frazier v. State, 362 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Bagley v. Brierton, 362 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)