JOHN E. SIMS, PETITIONER,
v.
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.
John Sims sought certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing his mandamus petition as untimely and frivolous and referring him for administrative sanctions. The First District Court of Appeal held that while the dismissal of the mandamus petition was proper, the referral for sanctions departed from the essential requirements of law because the court made the referral without allowing Sims to respond to the Department's sanctions request.
The court held that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in dismissing the mandamus petition as untimely and frivolous, but it did depart from the essential requirements of law by referring Sims for administrative sanctions without awaiting his reply to the Department's response, the Department's supplemental response, or Sims's reply thereto.
[1] A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law by referring a petitioner for administrative sanctions without awaiting the petitioner's reply to the respo…
[2] A circuit court's order referring a petitioner for administrative sanctions may be quashed when the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity to respond to the request fo…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“by referring Sims for consideration of disciplinary proceedings without awaiting his reply to the Department's initial response in which the referral request was made, the Department's supplemental response, or Sims' reply thereto, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the core holding that the circuit court violated procedural requirements by making the sanctions referral prematurely without allowing Sims due process opportunity to respond.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSims filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections. The circuit court issued an order to show cause and allowed Sims thi…
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 Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
John E. Sims seeks certiorari review of an order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus as untimely and frivolous, and directing that a copy of the order be delivered to the Department of Corrections for consideration of appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2014). As petitioner concedes, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by failing to grant mandamus relief. However, we agree with petitioner that the portion of the order referring him for potential administrative sanctions resulted from a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Sims filed his petition for writ of mandamus and the circuit court issued an order to show cause directing the Department of Corrections to respond and allowing Sims thirty days following service of that response to file a reply. Sims then filed a motion to supplement *980or amend his pleading and approximately one week later, the Department filed its response to the order to show cause. That response included a request that the court refer Sims for consideration of administrative sanctions pursuant to section 944.279(1). One week after the filing of the Department’s response, the circuit court rendered an order granting petitioner’s motion for leave to amend his petition, directing the Department to file a supplemental response within 60 days, and affording Sims the opportunity to file a reply to the supplemental response. However, three days later, the court rendered the order for which review is presently sought.
Based on this sequence of events, we conclude that by referring Sims for consideration of disciplinary proceedings without awaiting his reply to the Department’s initial response in which the referral request was made, the Department’s supplemental response, or Sims’ reply thereto, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law.1 Cf. Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, the portion of the circuit court’s order directing that a copy thereof be delivered to DOC for consideration of appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, is QUASHED, and the matter is remanded for any further proceedings the lower tribunal deems warranted.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., concur.