RICHARD DOSS, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
Richard Doss, a prisoner, petitioned for certiorari to review a circuit court order denying his mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary sanction and certifying it as frivolous. The appellate court found the mandamus petition was timely filed under the mailbox rule but upheld the denial on the merits, while vacating the frivolous certification for reconsideration.
The mandamus petition was timely filed because Doss was entitled to benefit of the mailbox rule, which allowed him until April 9, 1998 to file. However, the underlying disciplinary challenges were either procedurally barred or of insufficient merit. The frivolous certification must be reconsidered by the circuit court in light of the petition's timeliness.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus challenging a disciplinary sanction is timely if filed within 30 days of the conclusion of the Department of Corrections' administrative g…
[2] A court may deny relief on a writ of mandamus if the challenges to the underlying disciplinary action were not raised in the administrative proceedings.
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“As Doss was entitled to benefit of the "mailbox rule" in accordance with Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992), we cannot agree with the circuit court's conclusion that the mandamus petition was untimely.”
Establishes that Doss's petition was timely filed despite the circuit court's conclusion to the contrary, applying the mailbox rule for prisoner filings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDoss received a disciplinary sanction for disrespect to officials while incarcerated. The Department of Corrections' Secretary responded to his admini…
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 Procedurally Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Doss timely petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of mandamus which challenged a disciplinary sanction imposed against Doss for disrespect to officials. In addition to denying relief, the circuit court certified the mandamus proceeding to be a frivolous action, authorizing the department to impose additional sanctions in accordance with section 944.279, Florida Statutes. We have jurisdiction, Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998), and, for the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition in part and deny it in part.1
The circuit court denied relief because it found the petition for writ of mandamus was untimely under section 95.11(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(4), which require the petition to be filed within 30 days of conclusion of the Department of Corrections’ administrative grievance process. However, the documents provided to this court in the appendix and Doss’s sworn statement reveal that the Secretary’s response was mailed to Doss on March 9, 1998, and the mandamus petition was given to prison officials for mailing on April 6, 1998. As Doss was entitled to benefit of the “mailbox rule” in accordance with Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992), we cannot agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that the mandamus petition was untimely.
However, we do agree that the challenges to the underlying disciplinary action were either procedurally barred because they were not raised in the administrative proceedings, Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), or were of insufficient merit that we find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the circuit court’s decision to deny relief. In these circumstances, however, we are unable to ascertain whether the circuit court would have made a section 944.279 certification had it realized the mandamus petition was timely. Accordingly, we grant the petition in part, quash that portion of the circuit court’s order which certified the mandamus petition as frivolous pursuant to section 944.279, and remand with directions that the circuit court reconsider the certification in light of this opinion. The petition for writ of certiorari is otherwise denied.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
ERVIN, BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., concur. . Respondent’s argument that the petition for writ of certiorari was untimely is without merit. Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)