MANUELA MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
MANUELA MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
838 So. 2d 702
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellant, Manuela Marshall [“Marshall”], appeals the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus directed to the Florida Department of Corrections [“DOC”] to compel the award of gain time under section 944.275(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). Marshall is not entitled to issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the DOC to award her six days gain time for work performance “over and above that which may normally be expected.” Even if her performance had been exemplary, and even if she is correct that the DOC’s interpretation of the statute is unduly narrow, the award is plainly discretionary. Mandamus does not lie to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular fashion or to establish a right.
AFFIRMED.
TORPY, J., and COBB, W„ Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amr Salam v. Bd. OF Prof'l Eng'rs, 946 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…cense, refusing to grant a formal hearing on the denial and failing to respond to substantive arguments on appeal). . “Mandamus does not lie to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular fashion or to establish a right.” Marshall v. State, 838 So. 2d 702, 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).…
-
Perea v. Almeyda (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2007)…a determination that the inmate is no longer a danger to himself or others, also requires the exercise of discretion. Mandamus may not be used “to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular fashion or to establish a right.” Marshall v. State, 838 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Therefore, because the statute and administrative rules fail to define or specifically establish what a reasonable degree of medical certainty is, or what constitutes an inmate no longer being a danger to himself or others, the…