STEPHEN PATE, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE THOMAS D. SAWAYA, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ETC., 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.
The court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus, requiring the trial court to schedule a state prisoner's civil case for trial.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to schedule the civil case for trial after the petitioner filed a renewed notice of readiness.
[1] A writ of mandamus may be issued to compel a trial court to schedule a civil case for trial when the case has been pending for an extended period and the requirements for…
[2] A pro se litigant, even if incarcerated, should be allowed to proceed with their chosen trial strategy, including the decision to proceed without certain witnesses or dis…
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 intelligenceA state prisoner, representing himself in a civil suit for injuries suffered in prison, petitioned for a writ of mandamus after the trial court failed…
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 Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Pate petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus to require the trial court to schedule his civil case for trial. Pate is a state prisoner representing himself in this proceeding, as well as in a civil suit. In that suit he sought compensation from other inmates for injuries he suffered in prison when they beat him. We agree the trial should now be set and issue the writ.
The civil suit was filed in April of 1998. It was set for trial in November of 1994. Pate moved the trial court to order the transport of two inmate witnesses for the trial. The trial court denied Pate’s transport request, but continued the trial to allow Pate to depose the inmate witnesses he planned to present at trial. Pate responded that he was indigent and could not afford the services of a court reporter. He asked for the trial to proceed because he had available non-inmate witnesses who could testify. The court denied his request to let the trial proceed.
On June 12, 1995, Pate filed a renewed notice of readiness and request for jury trial. The trial court failed to reschedule the case for trial. Responding to Pate’s petition for mandamus, the trial judge asserts Pate has failed to demonstrate his case is ready for trial. According to the trial judge, Pate has identified several inmate and non-inmate witnesses, but has done nothing else.
In his renewed request for scheduling, Pate estimated a jury trial would take approximately one day, and that it would concern the original action filed. It appears this notice fulfills all the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(b). Pate apparently now believes his trial can proceed without the transport of, or depositions of, inmate witnesses. He is his own counsel in his civil damage case, and should be allowed to proceed in the manner he has chosen, whether we agree or disagree with the wisdom of his decisions. Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue the writ of mandamus. Cf. Ivans v. Greenbaum, 613 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus GRANTED.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Lincare Inc., 906 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e of Civil Procedure 1.440, and that several notices for trial informed the court of such, the court has refused to set a trial date because discovery is not yet completed. We have jurisdiction, grant the petition and issue the writ. Pate v. Sawaya, 663 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In this medical malpractice case, Petitioner filed several notices for trial after the closure of the pleadings. In response, Respondents filed various objections claiming that the case is not ready for trial because of trial c…
-
Little v. Wisley Brave, 870 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Because setting a cause for trial in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 is a mandatory duty, we grant the petition and require that the case be set for trial. See Pate v. Sawaya, 663 So. 2d 679, 679-80 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Ivans v. Greenbaum, 613 So. 2d 130, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 539 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). GUNTHER, WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Ivans v. The Honorable Martin Greenbaum, 613 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)