ROBERT LEE EICHELBERGER, PETITIONER,
v.
DEBORAH K. BRUECKHEIMER, CHIEF ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
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.
Robert Eichelberger, a prison inmate, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Chief Assistant Public Defender to respond to his correspondence complaining about delays in the public defender's office. The court dismissed the petition as frivolous, clarifying that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel responses to prisoner complaints or to supervise attorney-client communications.
The writ of mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel responses to prisoner correspondence or to supervise attorney-client communications. Mandamus is limited to compelling an official to perform ministerial, lawful duties, and does not extend to matters of discretion such as the order of priority assigned to appeals or the monitoring of correspondence between attorney and client.
[1] A writ of mandamus is used to compel an official to perform a lawful, ministerial duty, not to redress every grievance or disagreement.
[2] An assistant public defender or court-appointed counsel is considered an "official" for the purpose of mandamus actions.
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“Mandamus is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that mandamus requires a lawful duty to perform.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEichelberger, an inmate, sent a letter dated December 7, 1992, to the respondent, the Chief Assistant Public Defender for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, …
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 Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Eichelberger seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to answer his correspondence. Respondent is the Chief Assistant Public Defender in charge of non-capital appeals for the Tenth Judicial Circuit.
Of primary concern to Eichelberger is a letter dated December 7, 1992, allegedly unanswered, in which he registers a number of complaints about the public defender’s office. Some, such as a well-publicized delay in processing cases, are understandable; others, such as Eichelberger’s assumption that his appeal will receive “only a cursory examination,” seem to us gratuitous. Contrary to Eichelberger’s present position, it is not clear to us that the letter calls for an immediate response. Conceivably respondent felt her time, and that of her staff, was better spent researching and writing briefs.
We do not mean to downplay the frustration experienced by prison inmates who believe their cause is just and who find themselves at the mercy of a judicial sys tem whose operation may be slow in the best of times.
However, the writ of mandamus is intended to accomplish certain limited functions and not to redress every grievance or disagreement. Mandamus is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties. State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 112 Fla. 200, 150 So. 508 (1938). An assistant public defender or court-appointed counsel is an “official.” Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The act in question must be “ministerial” and not merely discretionary. City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel’s, Inc., 351 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1977). Generally the writ will command the respondent to act, but not how to act. For example, the writ might issue against a public defender who, without justification, simply ceased to perform his or her statutory duty to perfect appeals.
In contrast, mandamus would not lie to supervise the order of priority assigned to such appeals, and certainly not to monitor the flow of correspondence between attorney and client.
We write in this case primarily to express our concern, once again, about a needless proliferation of litigation instigated by prisoners. Prisoners may not be deprived of the right of access to the courts, see McCuiston v. Wanicka, 483 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“civil death” statute unconstitutional); but by abusing the right of access, a growing number of prisoner litigants are contributing to the very delay that underlies many of their petitions. This court, like all others in this country, operates with a finite number of judges and support staff, and under a finite amount of time. Each case competes with all others for a fair division of judicial resources. The simplest case exhausts taxpayer funds; such costs are seldom offset by filing fees which, in any event, are not assessed against indigents.
While pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction, and a petition will not be dismissed simply because it is mislabeled, Eichelberger’s petition does not suffer from mere technical deficiencies. Rather, it completely fails to provide this court with any basis for exercising its supervisory powers. In short, his petition is frivolous, and it is hereby dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Kurtis J. Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law. See Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). An assistant public defender is an “official” for purposes of mandamus. Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Woodson v. Durocher, 588 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1992). The legal duty of the official must be “ministerial in nature and not discretionary.” Lee County v. State Farm [*816] Mut. Auto…
-
Pearce v. Sheffey, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…nscript. See Thompson v. Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Mandamus is the appropriate remedy since it is used to compel an official to perform lawful duties. A court-appointed lawyer is an “official.” See Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Thompson v. Unterberger, supra. The nine-page record on this appeal contains nothing to refute the defendant’s assertion in his petition and brief that his counsel was court-appointed. If that assertion is true, the defendant…
-
Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…legations in support of setting aside the default and judgment are buried within numerous letters and motions and are not artfully stated. But he is a pro se litigant and his pleadings should be liberally construed. See Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). At the least, Chancey’s filings may suggest a case of excusable neglect. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b). They also raise the possibility that he did file a response to his wife’s petition and should not have been defaulted, o…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. T. v. Buckwalter, 112 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1933)
- Thompson v. Simpson Unterberger, 577 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- City OF Miami Beach v. MR. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1977)
- McCUISTON v. Wanicka, 483 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)