RICHARD E. VAUGHAN, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Court quashed circuit court's denial of mandamus petition where prison disciplinary team denied inmate's request to inspect clothing items allegedly constituting escape paraphernalia without valid justification, requiring remand to determine appropriate relief.
Where the appearance of items is critical to a disciplinary charge, denial of an inmate's request to produce those items for inspection without meaningful justification violates due process and warrants mandamus relief.
[1] In a prison disciplinary proceeding where the physical appearance of items is a critical element of the charge, denial of an inmate's request to inspect those items witho…
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 intelligenceVaughan was charged with possessing escape paraphernalia—clothing fashioned to resemble street clothes—after a prison disciplinary proceeding. He admi…
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 Due Process In Disciplinary Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari, Richard E. Vaughan seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition below, Vaughan challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding resulting from the discovery of certain articles of clothing characterized by the charging officer as “escape paraphernalia” because they had been fashioned to resemble street clothes. Vaughan admitted making the items, but asserted that they were merely pajamas and requested that they be produced for the disciplinary team’s inspection. That request was denied without meaningful justification, and based on the charging officer’s description of the items, Vaughan was found guilty of possessing escape paraphernalia.
Under the facts of this case, where the appearance of the items of clothing was a critical issue, we conclude that the circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it rejected Vaughan’s claim that the disciplinary team improperly denied his request for production of these objects without providing a valid reason for doing so. See Osterback v. Singletary, 679 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we quash the decision of the circuit court and remand with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandamus and determine the appropriate relief to which Vaughan is entitled.
KAHN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.