CHARLIE BROWN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DALE CAMPION AND EVANDER COLLIER, 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.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed its previous decision converting Charlie Brown Jr.'s appeal into a certiorari petition, holding that an order denying a plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil case is neither reviewable by writ of certiorari nor immediately appealable because the plaintiff has a second opportunity to seek indigency status for appellate purposes.
An order denying a plaintiff's request to proceed as indigent in a civil case is not reviewable by writ of certiorari and is not a final order or non-final order appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, because the plaintiff has a second opportunity to seek indigency status for appellate purposes, meaning irreparable harm cannot be presumed.
[1] An order denying a plaintiff's request to proceed as indigent in a civil case is not reviewable by writ of certiorari because it does not result in irreparable harm that…
[2] A plaintiff denied indigency status at the trial level has a second opportunity to seek indigency status for appellate purposes.
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“if the plaintiff is indeed indigent, such an order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law, and that irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal will result because, not only will the plaintiff's indigency prevent him from proceeding to trial, it will prevent him from seeking redress on appeal as well”
Establishes the Fourth District's prior reasoning for treating such orders as certiorari-eligible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharlie Brown Jr. sought review of an order denying his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (as an indigent) in a civil proceeding. The court had init…
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 Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has sought review of an order denying his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in a civil proceeding. The court previously converted the appeal to a petition for writ of certiorari. However, upon further consideration, it appears that such treatment is not appropriate.
The Fourth District has held that an appeal of an order denying a plaintiffs request to proceed as indigent in a civil case is properly treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 590 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
The court determined that such an order satisfies the standard for certiorari. See Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)(holding that certiorari is available where the order from which review is sought is a departure from the essential requirements of the law and will cause irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal).
In Eberhardt, the court found specifically that if the plaintiff is indeed indigent, such an order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law, and that irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal will result because, not only will the plaintiffs indi-gency prevent him from proceeding to trial, it will prevent him from seeking redress on appeal as well. However, we find that because a plaintiff who is denied indigency status at the trial level has a second opportunity to seek indigency status for appellate purposes, it cannot be presumed that he will be unable to seek redress on appeal.
Thus, an order denying a plaintiffs request to proceed as indigent in a civil case does not result in irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal and is therefore not reviewable by a writ of certiorari.
Furthermore, an order denying a plaintiffs request to proceed as indigent in a civil case is not a final order or a non-final order appealable pursuant to’ Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari is hereby converted back to an appeal and is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to appellant to file a notice of appeal when a final order of dismissal is rendered.
BARFIELD, C.J., LAWRENCE, AND BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (58 total)
-
Robert E. Banks v. State, 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…g considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of October 6, 2005, as well as the appellant’s supplemental response filed in this Court on October 19, 2005, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Similar to an order denying indigency status, an interlocutory order granting indigency status and imposing a lien on a prisoner’s trust account for payment of court costs and fees is not an immediately appealable order. This di…
-
Swinson v. McDONOUGH, 951 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Banks v. State, 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal of interlocutory order imposing lien on prisoner’s inmate account); Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding order denying indigency status is not immediately reviewable). See also, Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (providing relief from indi-gency order where review was properly initiated following final ord…
-
Caison v. McNEIL, 988 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Banks v. State, 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). BARFIELD, WOLF, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 58 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 590 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)