W. GERRY HARGROVE, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of inmate's administrative challenge to Department of Corrections' denial of visiting list approval, holding that inmates must pursue grievance procedures rather than Chapter 120 administrative proceedings.
An inmate's challenge to the Department of Corrections' application of visitation rules must be pursued through normal inmate grievance procedures under Chapter 33-29, Florida Administrative Code, not through Chapter 120 administrative proceedings.
[1] An inmate's challenge to the Department of Corrections' application of visitation rules must be pursued through inmate grievance procedures under Chapter 33-29, Florida A…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn unmarried inmate sought to place a married female lay minister and counselor affiliated with his church congregation on his visiting list, but the …
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 Rights of Inmates cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings on the authority of Harris v. Department of Corrections, 499 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (appellant's remedy lies not in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, proceeding, but in normal grievance procedures available to inmates). We note that Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, specifically permits an unmarried inmate like appellant “to have one single non-immediate family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval” [emphasis added] but does not address the circumstances here, where a married, female lay minister and counselor affiliated with appellant’s church congregation unsuccessfully attempted to be placed on the visiting list. In the final order, DOAH held that its “jurisdiction in this matter is limited to a determination of whether the challenged rules are invalid,” but that it “has no authority over [the Department of Corrections’] application of its interpretation of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, to the Petitioner.” Because a section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1991), proceeding is unavailable to inmates, the proper method of redress concerning the Department of Corrections’ interpretation of its visitation rules is in the normal grievance procedures. See Chapter 33-29, Florida Administrative Code.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.