STEPHEN D. SICA, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., DAVID R. FARCAS, FRANK YOUNGBLOOD, JR., MICHAEL O. MCRAE, J.R. WHITE, R.D. WOODMANSEE, AND N. BEHRENS, 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.
A legally blind, 77-year-old prisoner appealed denial of his mandamus petition claiming he was transferred to harsher conditions and denied access to a reading device and comparable reading materials in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court affirmed the denial of mandamus while acknowledging the ADA applies to state prisoners, finding mandamus was not the appropriate remedy.
Although the ADA applies to state prison inmates under title II, the court held that Sica failed to establish circumstances entitling him to mandamus relief. The court affirmed the denial of the mandamus petition without prejudice to filing a more appropriate action.
[1] Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act unambiguously extends to state prison inmates.
[2] Mandamus is an extraordinary writ used to compel a public official to perform a clear legal duty.
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 intelligence“Mandamus is a narrow, extraordinary writ used to coerce an official to perform a clear legal duty.”
Establishes the strict standard for obtaining mandamus relief that Sica failed to satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephen Sica, a legally blind prisoner, was transferred from DeSoto Correctional Institution to Charlotte Correctional Institution. He claims the tran…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Stephen D. Sica appeals an order denying his petition for mandamus. Mr. Sica is a 77-year-old, legally blind prisoner. He claims he was transferred from DeSoto Correctional Institution to harsher conditions at Charlotte Correctional Institution as punishment for reporting possible health risks concerning the water supply at DeSoto Correctional. His primary complaints are that Charlotte Correctional Institution confiscated his “book machine”1 and that, as a handicapped prisoner, he does not have access to reading material comparable to the aceess of the non-handicapped prisoners. The non-handicapped prisoners have access to books twenty-four hours a day, which permits them to read while in their dormitory bunks. Mr. Sica has no books available to him in his own quarters, and limited access to the institution’s library. He claims that prisoners are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),2 that his book machine should be returned to him, and that he should have equal or comparable access to reading material.
There has been an ongoing debate concerning the applicability of the ADA to prisoners. See generally Raines v. State, 983 F.Supp. 1362 (N.D.Fla.1997) (applying ADA to prisoners); Staples v. Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, 904 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.Va.1995) (refusing to apply ADA to prisoners). The United States Supreme Court recently resolved this issue by finding that the plain text of title II of the ADA unambiguously extends to state prison inmates. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998). Although the ADA now applies to state prisoners, Mr. Sica has not established circumstances entitling him to the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a narrow, extraordinary writ used to coerce an official to perform a clear legal duty. See Ferris v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Sumter County, 119 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Even if Mr. Sica is entitled to greater access to a reading machine, we must affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to him filing some other more appropriate action.
Affirmed.
PARKER, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. . From the record, we do not know Ae size or specifications of Ais machine. It is unclear whether Mr. Sica is claiming that he owns Ais machine or whether it has been made available for his use by some private or governmental program.
. 42U.S.C. § 12101, etseq. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whiley v. Hon. Rick Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011)…y writs. Extraordinary writs should only be employed with great caution and under very limited circumstances. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla.1977); Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853, 857, 132 So. 677 (Fla.1931); Sica v. Singletary, 714 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Broward County v. Fla. Nat’l Props., 613 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Chiles v. Phelps, 714 So. 2d 453, 457 (Fla.1998) (explaining that usually the constitutionality of an act should be challenged in a decl…
-
Mathews v. Crews, 132 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2014)…er use of the writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a “narrow, extraordinary writ” used to compel the performance of a clear legal duty when there is no other adequate remedy available. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla.2000); Sica v. Singletary, 714 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We take this opportunity to caution all litigants that the writ of mandamus cannot be used to review an allegedly erroneous judicial decision. Moreover, mandamus or other writs cannot be used to circumvent the constitution…
-
Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ficient to remedy the rule’s provisions requiring a [*479] fifty-day hiatus between trial and service of the last pleading). , “Mandamus is a narrow, extraordinary writ used to coerce an official ’to perform a clear legal duty.” Sica v. Singletary, 714 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). It “is a discretionary writ that is awarded; not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion and upon equitable principles.” Haft v. Adams, 288 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla.1970). This Court in Genuine…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1998)
- Ferris v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Sumter Cnty., 119 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Raines v. State, 983 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Fla. 1997)