LARVICTOR FLOURNOY, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL A. MOORE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
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 held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to seek monetary damages or compel criminal charges.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, institution of criminal charges, and…
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 Legality Of Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in Case No. 98-2611. In this petition, appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, institution of criminal charges against prison officials and an order compelling the prison officials to arrange for appellant to be examined by a qualified eye specialist. We affirm.
The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to inquire into the legality of the petitioner’s present detention. Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1954). It should not be used to invoke questions not affecting the lawfulness of appellant’s custody and detention. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 136-137, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934), overruled in part on other grounds, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968). More specifically, it is not a vehicle to recover money damages. Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
In his argument before this court, appellant has confused the petition filed in Case No. 98-2611 with an earlier petition he filed in Case No. 98-2228. We do not address his arguments pertaining to Case No. 98-2223 because only the validity of the order in Case No. 98-2611 is before us.
AFFIRMED.
KAHN AND BENTON, JJ., CONCUR and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B„ Senior Judge, CONCURS.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. The Fla. Parole Comm'n & The Fla. Dep't of Corr., 768 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…alleged not that Andrews is presently unlawfully detained but that earlier he had been twice detained unlawfully for a total of more than eleven months. Money damages are not ordinarily available in habe-as corpus proceedings. See Flournoy v. Moore, 752 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), rev. denied, No. SC00-569, 767 So. 2d 456 (Fla. July 7, 2000). . Section 944.275 is the basic gain-time statute. A related section, 944.291, restricts release of certain offenders by providing for their release only upon condit…
-
Waters v. Inch, 266 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ndamus is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking monetary damages. The court cited Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), receded from on other grounds, Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Flournoy v. Moore, 752 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), in support. Unlike the appellants in those cases, Appellant here did not pray for relief in the form of money damages. Additionally, Flournoy and Newsome involved habeas petitions. As we have explained, mandamus is the pr…
Authorities Cited
- McNALLY v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1934)
- Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1968)
- Hogan v. Ardc Corp., 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1954)