RANDY A. SCOTT

v.

LEE COUNTY FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD

SLEET, Judge. Randy Scott appeals the trial court's final order summarily denying his petition for writ of mandamus that was based on his request to the Lee County School Board for public records under section 119.07, Florida Statutes (2019). We affirm without prejudice to allow Scott to file a petition that attaches a copy of the public records request that he made.

- 2 - On June 28, 2019, Scott filed his petition for writ of mandamus. In it, he alleged that Melissa Mickey is the legal custodian of public records for the Lee County School Board. He asserted that he made two requests to Mickey for records.

On June 11, 2019, he submitted a request seeking "the vouchers for numbers 00786166, 00786168, 00786172 and 00786174 associated with payment number 0000072759." On June 20, 2019, he submitted a request seeking "1. the Lee County School Board incident report summoning the sheriffs [sic] officers to the finance advisory committee meeting on 6/19/2019 approximately 415 pm. 2. the call log of the employees [sic] telephone that made the call between 345pm and 415 pm same day. 3. preserve the video at the FAC hallway from 345pm until 445 pm same day." Scott alleged in the petition that the Lee County School Board failed to timely provide documents responsive to his request. There is nothing in our record to suggest that Scott attached anything, such as his request for the records, to the petition.

The trial court denied Scott's petition and stated that he had not demonstrated that he has a clear legal right of entitlement to the requested documents and therefore did not state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Scott asserts on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his petition without issuing an alternative writ of mandamus for the Lee County School Board to show cause why the petition should not be granted. "A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law." Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).

Upon receiving such a petition, the trial court must determine whether it is facially sufficient. Id. If it is not, the

- 3 - trial court may dismiss the petition. Id.

However, if it is, "the court must issue an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be issued." Id. at 1068. Mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for a person to compel compliance with a public records request under section 119.07. Woodard v. State, 885 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Smith, 696 So. 2d at 816 (recognizing the mandatory nature of the disclosure of public records under chapter 119 for purposes of mandamus relief). To obtain a writ of mandamus, the initial pleading must contain "(1) facts on which the plaintiff relies for relief; (2) a request for the relief sought; and (3) if desired, argument in support of the complaint with citations of authority." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(b).

In addition, "[w]hen the complaint seeks a writ directed to a lower court or to a governmental or administrative agency, a copy of as much of the record as is necessary to support the plaintiff's complaint must be attached." Id.; see also Roberts v. State, 235 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (affirming the final order summarily denying Roberts' petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to allow his filing a facially sufficient petition that attaches a copy of his public records request); Major v. Hallandale Beach Police Dep't, 219 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming without prejudice the denial of mandamus relief when no record was attached to support the mandamus petition).

In Major, the Fourth District determined that the circuit court reached the correct result but for the wrong reason. 219 So. 3d at 858 (citing Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999)).

The Fourth District affirmed

- 4 - without prejudice to allow Major's filing a new petition that attached a deposition excerpt to support his claim regarding public records requested from the police department. Id. Similarly, we affirm the trial court's order without prejudice to allow Scott's filing a new petition that attaches a copy of his public records request that he made to the Lee County School Board. If Scott files such a petition that states a facially sufficient claim, then the trial court must issue an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Lee County School Board to show cause why Scott is not entitled to the requested relief. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.630(d)(2); Farmer v. State, 927 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (determining that the circuit court should have treated a motion to compel as a petition for writ of mandamus and that the motion with attachments that included the request for public records from the State Attorney's Office met the requirements for a mandamus petition; directing the circuit court to issue an alternative writ); Smith, 696 So. 2d at 815 (reversing the circuit court and remanding with instructions to issue alternative writs where the complaints seeking mandamus relief attached the formal record requests).

Affirmed. SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.