KENNETH LYNCE, GARY COOPER, CHRISTOPHER LOVETT, THOMAS LOVETT, TIMOTHY J. OTT, JOHNNIE MAC BROWN, AND HUBERT MADISON, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Seven Florida inmates sued the Department of Corrections for false imprisonment based on cancellation of their provisional credits and administrative gaintime under state law, claiming the cancellation violated the Ex Post Facto Clause after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lynce v. Mathis. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that DOC's reliance on presumptively constitutional legislation could not constitute unlawful detention.
DOC's cancellation of gaintime credits pursuant to statutory law cannot be recast as unlawful detention, as the agency was adhering to statutes that were presumptively constitutional at the time the cancellation occurred. Federal and state courts had upheld such cancellations against repeated Ex Post Facto challenges until Lynce.
[1] A claim for false imprisonment requires detention without lawful authority.
[2] Reliance on legislation that is presumptively constitutional can satisfy the element of lawful authority for detention, precluding a claim for false imprisonment.
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“DOC canceled appellants' provisional credits and administrative gaintime based upon statutory law. Federal and state courts upheld retroactive cancellation under such laws against repeated ex post facto challenges until the Supreme Court decided Lynce in 1997.”
Establishes that DOC's actions were consistent with then-prevailing law and court precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeven inmates had their provisional credits and/or administrative gaintime canceled by the Florida Department of Corrections pursuant to Attorney Gene…
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 Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
[Original Opinion at 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2419]
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our opinion filed on October 3, 2000, and substitute the following for it.
Appellants are seven inmates who sued the Department of Corrections (DOC) claiming false imprisonment. They alleged that DOC canceled certain of their provisional credits and/or administrative gaintime pursuant to Attorney General Opinion 92-96 (1992), and/or section 944.278, Florida Statutes (1993), and that the United States Supreme Court held in Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), that such cancellation violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution; thus, they were entitled to damages based upon DOC’s unlawful restraint of their liberty. The trial court dismissed the complaints for failure to state a cause of action, holding that DOC’s cancellation of gaintime in reliance on legislation that was presumptively constitutional could not satisfy the element of detention without lawful authority. We affirm.
DOC canceled appellants’ provisional credits and administrative gaintime based upon statutory law. Federal and state courts upheld retroactive cancellation under such laws against repeated ex post facto challenges until the Supreme Court decided Lynce in 1997. See, e.g., Hock v. Singletary, 41 F. 3d 1470 (11th Cir.1995); Herring v. Singletary, 879 F.Supp. 1180 (N.D.Fla.1995); Langley v. Singletary, 645 So. 2d 961 (Fla.1994); Griffin v. Singletary, 638 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1994); Waite v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). DOC’s adherence to statutes requiring cancellation of provisional credits and administrative gaintime cannot now be recast as “unlawful.”
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1997)
- Griffin v. Singletary, 638 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1994)
- Langley v. Singletary, 645 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1994)
- Hock v. Singletary, 41 F.3d 1470 (11th Cir. 1995)
- Beres Waite v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Herring v. Singletary, 879 F. Supp. 1180 (N.D. Fla. 1995)