BUSH WADE HOLLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
L.L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
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 the assignment of a prefix letter to an inmate number is a discretionary function of the Department of Corrections and not a ministerial duty, thus not subject to a writ of mandamus.
An inmate filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the assignment of the prefix letter 'C' to his inmate number. The trial court denied the…
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 Rulemaking Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Holland is currently confined as an inmate at the Apalachee Correctional Institution. In August of 1985, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the assignment of the prefix letter “C” to his inmate number. The trial court denied Holland’s petition on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. We agree and affirm.
In order for a petition for a writ of mandamus to be granted, it must be shown that the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the particular duty sought and that he has no other legal method for redressing the wrong or of obtaining the relief to which he is entitled. State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199 (1935); Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1976). The writ may be used to compel the performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law where it has not been performed as the law requires, State ex rel. Clendinen v. Dekle, 173 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1965), but discretionary authority cannot be the subject of the writ. Hunter v. Solomon, 75 So. 2d 803 (Fla.1954).
Here, Holland has no clear legal right to a particular prefix, nor is the assignment of a particular prefix a ministerial duty imposed on the Department of Corrections by law. Rather, as the record supports, the assignment of prefixes has been adopted by the Department to facilitate clearer record keeping, pursuant to its discretionary rule-making authority. According to the affidavit of Bobbie Glover, Admission and Release Administrator of the Department of Corrections, the assignment of prefixes serves simply to identify one or more sets of commitment papers received from sheriffs offices when an inmate is delivered to a reception facility, and has no bearing on a prisoner’s custody status.
As the trial court’s determination that Holland’s petition fails to state a cause of action is supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm.
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Kramp v. Osee R. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…illegal, petitioner’s remedy before this court is an appeal of the judgment. Mandamus will not lie where the duty is discretionary, not ministerial, and extraordinary writs do not lie where there is an adequate remedy at law. Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We find the first of respondent’s arguments well-taken. It has been the policy of this court to require a certificate of service indicating that a copy of petitions of this nature have been served on the circuit judge. We agree…
-
LEE Cnty. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…aternal Order of Police v. Odio, 491 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986). It is fundamental to the writ that the legal duty of the public agency must be ministerial in nature and not discretionary. Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Mandamus was inappropriately issued in this ease because the act involved requires discretion. The County is statutorily required to protect the confidentiality of the records. We conclude it is reasonable for the County to ens…
-
Caldwell v. Est. OF Jerry L. McDOWELL, 507 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1987)…behalf of the minor children. It is well settled that mandamus will lie where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the particular duty sought and that he has no other legal method for obtaining relief. Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). There is authority that mandamus is the appropriate remedy in this case. State ex rel. Gaines Construction Co. v. Pearson, 154 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1963); State ex rel. Hopps v. Horne, 75 Fla. 149, 77 So. 672 (1918). Admittedly, Cal…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)
- Heath v. Wada Sue Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1976)
- Hunter v. Solomon, 75 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1954)
- The State of Fla. on the relation of James A. Clendinen v. Dekle, 173 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1965)