ROBERT SANDONATO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE GUZMAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dissolve cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate a permanent injunction allegedly entered in 1998. Appellant has not shown any reversible error in the court’s order, and appellant has attempted to raise matters for the first time on appeal that he did not present below.
On appeal, appellant alleges that he was advised by the circuit court clerk that the file for this 1998 case has been destroyed, yet he asserts that his prison classification officer has informed him that an injunction in this case impacts his eligibility for certain programs in prison. The circuit court’s online docket for this case reflects that a “temporary injunction” was entered in April 1998. Appellant’s motions to vacate or dissolve an injunction in the underlying case number may in fact be moot.
Appellant should pursue administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections, and if necessary, obtain clarification from the circuit court as to whether any injunction order remains in force in this case.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Heritage Found. v. In re Est. of Walter Schmid, JR. (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
-
Pace Ctr. for Girls, Inc. v. Est. of Walter Schmid, JR. (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)