FRANK OWENS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
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.
Frank Owens, an incarcerated prisoner, appealed the summary denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his Close Management segregation status. The appellate court found the lower court lacked territorial jurisdiction because Owens had been transferred out of Miami-Dade County, and reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court where he is currently incarcerated.
The court held that the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County lacked territorial jurisdiction to rule on the petition because Owens was no longer incarcerated in that county at the time of the ruling. Habeas corpus petitions challenging incarceration-related issues must be filed in the circuit court of the county where the prisoner is currently incarcerated.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the correct mechanism to challenge a prisoner's reassignment to close management status.
[2] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving an issue regarding a prisoner's incarceration must be filed in the circuit court where the defendant is incarcerated.
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 intelligence“Because we find that an inmate may have a limited liberty interest in being housed with the general population as compared to [close management] depending on the duration of reassignment, we hold that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus remains the correct mechanism by which to challenge a reassignment.”
Establishes that habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for challenging Close Management placement decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Owens, housed in Bradford County, Florida, filed a habeas corpus petition in Miami-Dade County challenging his placement in Close Management res…
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 Territorial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J. UPON PARTIAL CONFESSION OF ERROR
Appellant, Frank Owens, a prisoner housed in Bradford County, Florida, appeals the summary denial of his petition for habeas corpus. In his petition, Owens challenged his placement and continued “Close Management” residential status assignment, which segregates him from the general prison population. Under well-established jurisprudence, the proper vehicle for raising the claim was filing the petition in the county in which he was incarcerated. See Banks v. Jones, 232 So. 3d 963, 966 (Fla. 2017) (“Because we find that an inmate may have a limited liberty interest in being housed with the general population as compared to [close management] depending on the duration of reassignment, we hold that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus remains the correct mechanism by which to challenge a reassignment.”); Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1192, 1992-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[A] defendant is required to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit where the defendant is incarcerated when the petition involves an issue regarding the prisoner’s incarceration.”).
Here, although the petition was properly initially transferred to the assigned judge, as the State properly and commendably concedes, at the time the lower tribunal rendered its ruling, Owens was no longer housed in Miami-Dade County.
Hence, the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County “lacked territorial jurisdiction over” this action. Genovese v. Tucker, 103 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
Accordingly, we reverse the order below, and remand with instructions to immediately transfer the action to the circuit court that has jurisdiction over the correctional facility in which Owens is currently incarcerated. Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought; provided that it shall not be the responsibility of the court to seek the proper remedy.”).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jahzwah Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Genovese v. Tucker, 103 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)