DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOE LEWIS HOLLAND, CURTIS HEAD, CHADOCK RICHARD, DOUGLAS ADAMS AND JOE RICHARDSON, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that a broad Department of Corrections directive constitutes a statement of agency policy requiring promulgation as a rule, while a specific institutional operating procedure does not. The agency, not individual institutions, is responsible for promulgating rules.
[1] A Department of Corrections policy directive of broad application throughout the prison system constitutes a statement of agency policy that must be promulgated as a depa…
[2] An individual prison's operating procedure, premised on statutory authority and existing department directives, does not necessarily require rulemaking treatment.
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 intelligenceInmates challenged two directives from the Department of Corrections (DOC) as unpromulgated rules. The Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) foun…
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 Agency Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellees, inmates at Baker Correctional Institution (BCI), petitioned the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), seeking a holding that the Department of Corrections (DOC) Policy and Procedure directive 2.02.13 and BCI Operating Procedure (IOP) 78-G-14 are rules which have not been validly promulgated under the provisions of statutory section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Following a hearing, the DOAH officer concluded that DOC directive 2.02.13 and BCI Operating Procedure 78-G-14, as they relate to maximum issues of winter clothing, are in fact unpromulgated rules and invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The department appealed.
We agree with the hearing officer that the department’s “Inmate Clothing and Linen Policy” directive 2.02.13 is of such breadth and application throughout the prison system as to constitute a statement of agency policy not promulgated as a department rule in accordance with section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and therefore is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
On the other hand, we disagree with the hearing officer’s conclusion that the BCI Superintendent’s IOP 78-G-14 requires rulemaking treatment. The IOP was premised on the authority of sections 20.315, 944.09 and 945.21, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida Administrative Code rule 33-3.02(6), the challenged DOC directive 2.02.13, and DOC directive 4.07.20.
Finally, as we have recently held, it is the DOC which is the agency required by law to promulgate rules and not the individual prisons of this state. Department of Corrections v. Adams, 458 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and Adams v. Department of Corrections, 469 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Should appellant or others find themselves affected by this IOP by virtue of being issued inadequate clothing, whether or not the issue is in compliance with the IOP, then these disputes must initially be reviewed through the already existing grievance procedures. Fla.Admin.Code Rule 33-3.07.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Barton, 507 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…jurisdiction of the court. This court has previously held that individual prisons are not administrative agencies and that IOP’s are not rules subject to challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1985). Department of Corrections v. Holland, 469 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Adams v. Department of Corrections, 469 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Department of Corrections v. Adams, 458 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Corrections v. Sumner, 447 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thus, the…
-
Cribbs v. Dep't OF Corr., 470 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ng procedure governing hours during which inmates could watch television. However, the memorandum and operating procedure are not rules subject to challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1983), Department of Corrections v. Holland, et al., 469 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Adams v. Department of Corrections, 469 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Department of Cor [*758] rections v. Adams, 458 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Corrections v. Sumner, 447 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). I…
-
Hendrix v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 574 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…the institutional level regulations were based, pursuant to the rule-making requirements of Chapter 120. See Florida Department of Corrections v. Piccirillo, 474 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also Florida Department of Corrections v. Holland, 469 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Adams v. Florida Department of Corrections, 469 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Cribbs v. Florida Department of Corrections, 470 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Adams v. Barton, 507 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In each of the…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Adams, 458 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Small v. State, 469 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Adams v. Dep't OF Corr., 469 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)