MICKEY A. PARK, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Court affirmed denial of mandamus petition seeking access to psychiatric evaluations, holding that mandamus is inappropriate where administrative remedies remain available.
A writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel access to psychiatric and psychological evaluations when the petitioner has not exhausted adequate administrative remedies such as grievance proceedings.
[1] A writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel access to inmate records when administrative remedies, including grievance proceedings, remain available and hav…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePark, an inmate, sought access to psychiatric and psychological evaluations prepared by Department of Corrections staff members regarding himself.…
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 Exhaustion Of Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the Department of Corrections (DOC) to allow him access to certain psychiatric and psychological evaluations of him made by members of the DOC staff. He claimed entitlement to these evaluations under Section 945.10(2), Florida Statutes (1988), and Diaz v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 519 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA), appeal dismissed, 525 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1988). We affirm.
In sustaining the order, we do not decide whether appellant is entitled to access these records. We decide only that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy because appellant has not demonstrated that he has exhausted all adequate remedies, such as an administrative grievance proceeding, as outlined in Rule 33-3.007 of the Florida Administrative Code. See also Hall v. Key, 476 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“To show entitlement to a writ of mandamus, ‘the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right on his part, an indisputable legal duty on the part of respondents, and that no other adequate remedy exists,’” quoting, State Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)).
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…rrect, in order to be entitled to any mandamus relief against the Department of Corrections or its employees in their official capacities, Mr. Jackson was required to plead and prove that he had exhausted administrative remedies. See Park v. Dugger, 548 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Millard v. State, 503 So. 2d 939, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Sawyer v. Wainwright, 422 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Morris v. Wainwright, 409 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Jones v. Wainwright, 298 So. 2d 5…
-
Roesch v. Beaird, 617 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ERVIN, Judge. We affirm for the reason that it does not appear from the record that appellant exhausted his administrative remedies. Park v. Dugger, 548 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Longmeier v. Longmeier, 895 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…hich allowed the child to select counseling over visits with petitioner, his father. Other claims for relief by the father were deferred to a later date. A party seeking a writ of mandamus must show that no other legal remedy exists. Park v. Dugger, 548 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hall v. Key, 476 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). If the November 9 order was appealable, Longmeier waived his right to relief by failing to appeal it. If it was not appealable because of reservation of jurisdiction by the trial…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Odell Hall v. KEY, 476 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Hammond v. Honorable E.L. Eastmoore, 519 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)