DOUGLAS L. ADAMS AND JAMES L. BIGLER, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND WILLIAM E. BOOTH, SUPERINTENDENT OF TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 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.
Two inmates challenged their disciplinary confinement and forfeiture of gain time imposed by the Florida Department of Corrections, arguing the disciplinary rule was unconstitutional, the finding lacked evidentiary support, the hearing procedure was deficient, and a team member was improperly appointed. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the constitutional challenge and one procedural claim but reversed and remanded other claims for an evidentiary hearing, finding the inmates properly exhausted administrative remedies and stated prima facie claims.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the constitutional challenge to the rule and the procedural claim regarding witnesses as to Bigler, but reversed and remanded the remaining claims, holding that the inmates properly exhausted administrative remedies by filing formal grievances and stated prima facie claims entitling them to an evidentiary hearing on the evidentiary support and procedural issues.
[1] A prisoner's challenge to the constitutionality of a Department of Corrections rule is deemed abandoned on appeal when the appellate brief contains no argument on that po…
[2] A trial court may properly deny relief on a claim that a prisoner failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief when the prisoner did not request the presence…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“we find that the trial court erred in dismissing the remaining claims in the petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as the third claim as to appellant Adams, without conducting an evidentiary hearing”
Establishes that the trial court's dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was improper error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1988, inmates Douglas L. Adams and James L. Bigler were charged with violating a Department of Corrections rule prohibiting unauthorized p…
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 Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellants, Douglas L. Adams and James L. Bigler, appeal the trial court’s denial of their petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. We affirm in part, reverse, and remand.
The appellants in this case are inmates incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections.
In February 1988, the two appellants were charged with having violated Rule 33-22.012(9-7), F.A.C., a Department of Corrections rule prohibiting unauthorized physical contact between inmates. After a hearing before a prison disciplinary team, the appellants were found guilty and received 30 days disciplinary confinement plus a forfeiture of 60 days of gain time.
In March 1988, appellants filed joint petitions for writ of habeas corpus and complaints for declaratory and injunctive relief in the circuit court, raising four issues: (1) that Rule 33-22.012(9-7), F.A.C., was vague and unconstitutional; (2) that the disciplinary report finding appellants guilty of having violated the rule was unsupported by the evidence; (3) that the disciplinary team failed to either call appellants’ witnesses during the hearing or to read their statements into evidence; and (4) that one of the disciplinary team members was not on the list of members specifically approved pursuant to Rules 33-22.003(1) and (2), F.A.C. After consideration of appel-lees’ response and appellants’ reply to its order to show cause, the trial court denied the petition and complaint on the grounds that appellants had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that they had failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the relief requested in the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, in which appellants challenged the constitutionality of Rule 33-22.012(9-7), F.A.C. As their appellate brief fails to contain any argument on that point, it appears that appellants have abandoned this issue. We also affirm, as to appellant Bigler only, the trial court’s ruling on the third point, above. It appears from the record on appeal that appellant Bigler did not request the presence of any witnesses at the hearing. Therefore, the trial court properly found, as to this issue and this appellant, that the petition failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief.
However, we find that the trial court erred in dismissing the remaining claims in the petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as the third claim as to appellant Adams, without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
First, contrary to the trial court’s ruling, it appears from the record on appeal that appellants properly exhausted all available administrative remedies by filing formal grievances at both the institutional level and with the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, pursuant to Rule 33-3.007, F.A.C.
Second, we find that appellants have stated at least a prima facie claim (with the exception of the third issue as to appellant Bigler, as noted above) in support of each of the three issues raised in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of these claims and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED, and REMANDED.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.