PHILLIP E. GUESS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
TOM BARTON, ET AL., 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.
The court held that a summary denial of a habeas corpus petition is improper if the petition's allegations, taken as true, could establish a cause of action.
An inmate appealed the summary denial of his habeas corpus petition, which alleged mistreatment, solitary confinement, denial of privileges and medica…
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 Cruel And Unusual Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*771] WOLF, Judge.
Guess has appealed an order summarily denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The focus of the habeas petition in the instant case is the appellant’s treatment in prison. He alleges, inter alia, that he has been abused by prison officials; kept on “c/m” confinement (close management) continuously (“I have spent virtually two and a half years in solitary confinement”); unjustly denied conveniences and privileges such as daily showers, exercise, TV, books, family visits; denied medical and dental care; and illegally denied gain time. The appellant’s petition also alleges that he believes he is in danger and has been denied protection, and that he has attempted to file grievances, but his “grievance attempts were then [sic] retaliated.”
In the instant case, the summary denial of appellant’s petition for habeas corpus was based on the trial court’s finding that “the petition does not on its face show a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.”
For purposes of appellate review, we must assume that the allegations of the appellant’s habeas petition are true. See Van Poyck v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). Recently, in Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), where a prison inmate petitioned for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the prison’s use of “close management” confinement was cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process and equal protection, this court reversed the summary denial of the lower court on the grounds that if the inmate’s allegations were true, they could establish that the department had failed to comply with due process requirements.
We reverse the summary denial of the petition herein and remand for further proceedings.
SHIVERS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 197 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…oceed through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Ashley v. Moore, 732 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Norris v. Dep’t of Corrections, 721 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Guess v. Barton, 599 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Holland v. State, 791 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Id. at 658.3 Since Kendrick, we have continued to reco…
-
Kendrick v. McNEIL, 6 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…oceed through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Ashley v. Moore, 732 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Norris v. Dep’t of Corrections, 721 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Guess v. Barton, 599 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Holland v. State, 791 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). No filing fee may be assessed in a true habeas corpus pr…
-
Moore v. Dugger, 613 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…6 days in an “involuntary behavior modification cell” that had a pool of water on the floor, trash and human waste standing in the stopped-up toilet, and no lights. While these allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action, Guess v. Barton, 599 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Van Poyck v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Rahming v. Bigham, 539 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), Moore’s petition was facially insufficient in that it failed to a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- van Poyck v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Campbell v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- ROY v. Dugger, 592 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)