MELVIN PEREZ, PETITIONER,
v.
CIRCUIT COURT FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
The court denied a mandamus petition seeking to compel the trial court to rule on an injunctive relief petition because the petitioner failed to bring the pending matter to the trial court's attention.
A petitioner seeking mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on a pending civil matter must first make the trial court aware of the action and request a hearing.
[1] In a civil proceeding, a party seeking to compel a trial court to rule on a pending matter must first bring the action to the court's attention and request a hearing, reg…
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 intelligenceMelvin Perez, an incarcerated individual, filed a petition for injunctive relief against the Osceola County Department of Corrections and then sought …
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Melvin Perez petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his petition for in-junctive relief filed against the Osceola County Department of Corrections. We deny the petition as it fails, to allege that Perez has made the trial court aware of the pending action.
In a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the trial court’s attention. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). For purposes of seeking a hearing, it is of no consequence that the petitioner is incarcerated or involuntarily committed. Although Perez is incarcerated, he could attend a telephonic hearing should the trial court to decide to hold one. See Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1991) (stating that trial court has discretion to decide whether to hold a telephonic hearing in prisoner’s civil case, but may not make a prisoner’s physical presence a condition precedent to ruling on pending matters). Accordingly, we deny Perez’s petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice. Perez must first make the trial court aware of his pending action and seek a hearing.
MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Anne Bates Leach EYE Inst., 174 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ble). [*572] If Harris is seeking for us to treat his petition as a petition seeking mandamus relief (i.e., to compel the trial court to rule on Harris’s rule 1.540 motion), we must deny such relief as well. Perez v. Circuit Court for Osceola Cnty., 882 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule is improper when the petitioner has failed to bring his motion to the trial court’s attention); see also Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Pet…
-
Hogan v. Dickenson, 910 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ld grant Hogan’s petition except for his failure to allege that he has sufficiently brought the case to the attention of the currently assigned judge by securing a hearing date before the court.1 See, e.g., Perez v. Circuit Court for Osceola County, 882 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Hopefully, our dismissal of Hogan’s petition without prejudice will encourage him to seek a hearing date from the currently assigned judge’s judicial assistant, who wi…
Authorities Cited
- Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Barber, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Marzuq Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)