CHAD CHRONISTER
v.
DUSTIN SEYERSDAHL
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.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of Hillsborough County to investigate or bring charges against Dustin Seyersdahl for alleged fraud and breach of contract. The court dismissed the petition, holding that mandamus is unavailable to compel discretionary law enforcement investigative decisions and that the petition failed to establish an indisputable ministerial duty.
The court dismissed the petition, holding that mandamus is not available to compel law enforcement to investigate alleged crimes because such investigative decisions are discretionary, not ministerial. The petition failed to allege a specific, indisputable, non-discretionary legal duty that the sheriff had failed to perform.
[1] A petition for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to the performance of the requested act, an indisputable legal duty, and the absence of an adequate r…
[2] A ministerial duty, for the purposes of a writ of mandamus, is one where there is no room for the exercise of discretion and the performance is directed by law.
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“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.”
Establishes the three-part test for obtaining mandamus relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Chad Chronister, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, seeking to compel him to investigate or brin…
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 Discretionary Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
DIVISION: C CHAD CHRONISTER in his official capacity as Sheriff of Hillsborough County,
Respondent. _______________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s May 9, 2025 Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking a writ to compel Respondent to investigate or bring charges against Dustin Seyersdahl with regard to alleged fraud and breach of contract.
Mandamus is the mechanism by which officials can be compelled to perform lawful, ministerial duties. See Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “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) (internal citations omitted). When receiving a petition for a writ of mandamus, the trial court’s “initial task is assessing the petition to determine whether it is facially sufficient. If it is not facially sufficient, the court may dismiss the petition.” Id. Mandamus is available only to “enforce an established legal right ... not to establish that right.” Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. An Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (internal citations omitted). “A ministerial duty or act is one where there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (internal citations omitted). Petitioner asserts that Respondent has a ministerial duty “initiate a criminal investigation into the acts of Dustin Seyersdahl under” the sections of Florida Statutes for theft, fraud, and wire fraud. However, the Petition fails to allege a specific, indisputable, non-discretionary legal duty that Respondent has failed or 05/13/2025 04:00:07 Morales, 388 So. 3d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (finding that the court may not issue a writ of mandamus requiring a law enforcement agency to investigate alleged crimes). The Court finds that the Petition is not facially sufficient. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gordon Polley, M.D., & N. Fla. Surgeons, P.A. v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. AN Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Evgeny Ryzhov v. Morales, 388 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)