LEWIS TAYLOR, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
TOM L. BARTON, SUPERINTENDENT, A.D. THORNTON, CHIEF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER II, TOM H. BIGHAM, CLASSIFICATION SUPERVISOR, RON E. DAVIS, PRISON INVESTIGATOR, APPELLEES
LEWIS TAYLOR, JR., APPELLANT,
TOM L. BARTON, SUPERINTENDENT, A.D. THORNTON, CHIEF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER II, TOM H. BIGHAM, CLASSIFICATION SUPERVISOR, RON E. DAVIS, PRISON INVESTIGATOR, APPELLEES
556 So. 2d 415
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a Florida State Prison inmate, appeals the summary denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the petition appellant alleges that prison authorities placed him in administrative confinement without a hearing before a senior correctional officer so that he could present his views. Appellant further alleged he has exhausted his administrative remedies. If these allegations are true, the Department of Corrections would appear to have violated its rules, and so summary denial of the petition was inappropriate. Rahming v. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
SMITH, THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avera v. State, 582 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…time earned after the escape as a result of the escape. He has therefore alleged facts [*94] which, if true, would establish that the DOC failed to comply with its own rules; and the petition should not have been summarily denied. Taylor v. Barton, 556 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Avera forfeited gain time earned after the escape as a result of the escape. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions for further proceedings. ERVIN and WOLF…
-
Seibert v. Dugger, 595 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…366 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Granger v. Florida State Prison, 424 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Roesch v. Wainwright, 474 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Rahming v. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) and Taylor v. Barton, 556 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Applying it herein, we find error in the court’s summary denial of the appellant’s claim that Holman’s presence and/or participation at his disciplinary hearing violated Rule 33-22.006(2)(h). Accordingly, we reverse the trial co…
Authorities Cited
- Rahming v. T.H. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)