WILLIAM J. BUCK
v.
JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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.
William J. Buck, an inmate, challenged the Department of Corrections' rejection of his timely grievance appeal regarding a disciplinary report for possession of stimulants. The court held that inmates have a clear legal right to agency review of timely-filed grievance appeals and that Buck's appeal was timely submitted based on dated documentation and legal mail stamps.
The court reversed the circuit court's dismissal and remanded for entry of an order compelling the Secretary of the Department of Corrections to consider the merits of Buck's grievance appeal. Inmates have a clear legal and due process right to agency responses to timely-appealed grievances challenging disciplinary reports, and the Department's rejection of Buck's timely-filed appeal violated this right.
[1] An inmate who submits a timely grievance appeal challenging a disciplinary report has a due process right to receive a response on the merits from the Department of Corre…
[2] A dated grievance appeal and legal mail date stamp constitute evidence of timeliness that shifts the burden to the Department of Corrections to rebut the presumption that…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“An inmate has a due process right to the agency complying with its own rules; [t]his includes ensuring the Department complies with inmate grievance rules.”
Waters v. Department of Corrections standard establishing inmate rights regarding grievance procedures
Buck received a disciplinary report for possession of stimulants and filed a grievance appeal with the Department of Corrections. The Department retur…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
November 13, 2018 PER CURIAM.
William J. Buck received a disciplinary report for possession of stimulants, and after denial of his grievance by the institution, he sought review with the Department of Corrections but his grievance appeal was returned to him as untimely. He petitioned the circuit court to compel the Department of Corrections to comply with its own rules regarding timeliness, but the circuit court denied relief. His certiorari petition in this Court is treated as an appeal. See Rivera v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Appellant’s petition filed in the trial court sought to compel the Department to comply with its own rules. . . . [T]his matter is appropriately treated as an appeal”).
Inmates have a clear legal right to a response to a timely-appealed grievance challenging a disciplinary report. Waters v. Department of Corrections, 144 So. 3d 613, 615 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“An inmate has a due process right to the agency complying with its own rules”; “[t]his includes ensuring the Department complies with inmate grievance rules.”); Hoever v. Fla. DOC, 156 So. 3d 543, 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[A]ppellant had the right to a response to his timely grievance appeal challenging his disciplinary report.”).
Buck’s grievance appeal was timely submitted, as indicated by the dated grievance appeal and the legal mail date stamp from the Department; indeed, the Department concedes it was timely under Waters, 144 So. 3d 613 (finding the Department failed to rebut dated grievance appeal and legal mail stamp, which was evidence of timeliness) and Hoever, 156 So. 3d 543 (finding the Department failed to rebut the presumption that the grievance appeal was timely mailed).
Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and remand for entry of an order compelling the Secretary of the Department of Corrections to consider the merits of Appellant’s grievance appeal.
REVERSE and REMAND.
WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ William J. Buck, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brett Coleman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Waters v. Dept. OF Corrections, 144 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Rivera v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Conraad L. Hoever v. FLA. Dept. OF Corr., 156 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)