JOHN WILLIAM MORRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY, 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.
Petition for writ of mandamus challenging gain-time calculation denied because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not timely file within 30 days of final agency action as required by statute and court rules.
A petition challenging gain-time calculation must be denied when the petitioner fails to exhaust administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections and does not file timely within 30 days of final agency action.
[1] The requirement to exhaust administrative remedies and file timely within 30 days of final agency action applies to inmate grievances against the Department of Correction…
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 intelligencePetitioner Morris alleged his gain time was improperly calculated in violation of Weaver v. Graham, but did not demonstrate exhaustion of administrati…
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 Judicial Review Of Final Agency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner alleges that his gain time has been improperly calculated, in violation of Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). However, he has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed for review of final agency action in this Court, pursuant to § 120.68(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Rule 33-3.07, Fla.Admin.Code, dictates a two-step review process within the Department of Corrections, prior to judicial review of the order of the Secretary or his representative. This Court has no jurisdiction over petitioner’s case because he fails to show that he filed this petition within 30 days of the Secretary’s response to an inmate grievance appeal. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.110. This Court stated in Holman v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 407 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981), that “[i]f the date of final agency action is included in a petition and if that date is within 30 days of the filing of the petition, this Court can treat the petition as a notice of appeal, see Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), and ultimately consider the cause on its merits.”
We hold that the above rule applies to inmate grievances against the Department of Corrections. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied for failure to allege and show exhaustion of administrative remedies.
JOANOS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saccucci v. State, 546 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…he validity of Mr. Saccucci’s 1971 conviction so much as the detrimental reliance upon that conviction allegedly occurring at his current place of confinement. There may be administrative remedies available to Mr. Saccucci. See Morris v. Wainwright, 409 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Cole v. Dugger, 543 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Alternatively, habeas corpus in the jurisdiction where he is incarcerated might provide a remedy.3 We hold only that the trial court was correct in refusing to address Mr. Sac…
Authorities Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981)
- Holman v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)