JERRY L. STURDIVANT, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE M.C. BLANCHARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 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.
An inmate seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a circuit judge to rule on a habeas corpus petition against the Florida Parole and Probation Commission appeals the denial of his petition. The court denies the mandamus petition, holding that the inmate had an adequate alternate remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act and that the judge did not fail to perform a ministerial duty.
The court denies the petition for writ of mandamus because: (1) mandamus will not issue when an adequate ordinary remedy exists, and Sturdivant could have appealed the circuit court order; and (2) the circuit judge did not fail to perform a ministerial duty, as he properly ruled on the petition for legal reasons.
[1] A writ of mandamus will not issue when an ordinary remedy, such as an appeal, is adequate.
[2] A writ of mandamus is available to compel a public officer to perform a ministerial duty.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a writ of mandamus will not issue unless no ordinary remedy would be adequate”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that mandamus is unavailable when adequate alternative remedies exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSturdivant, a Florida prison inmate, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the Florida Parole and Probation Commission in Circuit Court f…
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 Ministerial Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sturdivant, an inmate in the Florida prison system, asks this court to mandate a judge in the Circuit Court for Escambia County to rule on the merits of a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. The petition was denied because petitioner has an adequate remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act.
For the following reasons, we deny this petition for writ of mandamus. First, a writ of mandamus will not issue unless no ordinary remedy would be adequate. Shevin ex rel. State v. Public Service Commission, 333 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla.1976); Holman v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 407 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and State ex rel. Department of General Services v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580, 592-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Sturdivant could have appealed the circuit court order. Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b). Second, a writ of mandamus lies to compel a public officer to perform a ministerial duty. Fasenmyer v. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So. 2d 312, 315-16 (Fla.1961); DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla.1957); State ex rel. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Graham v. Vann, 394 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Sturdivant does not allege that respondent failed to perform his ministerial duty. In fact, respondent ruled on the petition for writ of habeas corpus, denying it for clearly legal reasons, since petitioner should have appealed the Commission’s final action to this court. Daniels v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
MILLS, ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…espondent has failed or refused to do so. Pleus v. Crist, 14 So. 3d 941 (Fla.2009). A third and final element is that the petitioner must have no adequate legal remedy for the respondent’s failure to carry out its duty. Id.; Sturdivant v. Blanchard, 422 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). By this point in our discussion it is obvious that the first two elements have been satisfied here. The third element is present, as well. It is true that the Gawk-er defendants have available to them the legal remedy of pursui…
-
Washington v. Am. Homes 4 Rent Props. Six, LLC (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Daniels v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jay G. Glynn & Betty Glynn v. McNAYR, 133 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1961)
- Shevin v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Fasenmyer v. Louie L. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969)
- Holman v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Graham v. Vann, 394 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)