HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
LANCY DUGGINS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Harry K. Singletary, Secretary of the Department of Corrections [DOC], seeks a writ of certiorari, directed to the trial court, quashing that court’s order entered in DOC inmate Lancy Duggins’ criminal case, which order prohibits the DOC from cutting Dug-gins’ hair (based on Duggins’ religious beliefs). We grant the writ and quash the trial court’s order as the DOC was not given notice of the proceedings through which the order was entered. See Florida Dep’t of Corrections v. Wilson, 594 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We also observe that even if notice had been given, the trial court lacks authority in this criminal action to regulate the treatment of a sentenced defendant in the prison system. Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Duggins states that he desires to challenge the validity of the DOC’s hair regulation. Our deci sion is without prejudice to Duggins’ seeking such relief in an appropriate forum.
Writ granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Morrison, 727 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…t violates an applicable statute, or that the conditions of his confinement violate a constitutional provision, then after exhausting administrative remedies Morrison may bring an appropriate action against the Department. See Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234, 24 Florida L. Weekly D181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State ex rel. Powers v. Schwartz, 355 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). For the aforementioned reasons, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the relevant paragraphs, paragraph five (5) and…
-
Akeem Muhammad v. Crosby, 922 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…orized to regulate treatment of inmates, the court does have jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the validity of DOC’s shaving regulation on religious grounds. See Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).…
-
Moore v. Burns, 796 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…inmates; particularly as it relates to inmates’ hair length. See Moore v. Mills, 789 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Moore v. Lowery, 758 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In Moore v. Mills, this Court unequivocally stated that “[t]he cutting of hair and beards are clearly conditions which the DOC set for inmate confinements, and to interfere with those conditions exceeds judicial authority.” Moo…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Wilson, 594 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Howard v. State, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)