WILLIE JAMES BISHOP, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2003-06-20
No. 2D02-4654
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.
848 So. 2d 388 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2003)

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate a clear legal right or a breach of duty by the Department of Corrections.


Facts & Procedural History

Bishop, an inmate, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Corrections to provide a list of approved vendors for a religious medallion a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
WHATLEY, Judge.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Willie James Bishop appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. Bishop is seeking to obtain a talisman medallion, which he claims he is allowed to possess pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-602, because it is a religious medallion. Although he is allowed to possess such a medallion, Florida Administrative Code Rule 33 — 602.201(15)(d) requires that he acquire the medallion through an authorized vendor, canteen purchase, or bona fide religious organization. In his petition, Bishop sought to compel the Department of Corrections to produce its list of approved vendors from whom he could order the medallion and to show why a pawn shop is not an approved vendor. We affirm because it appears that Bishop can order a talisman medallion from the prison canteen. Therefore, he has failed to demonstrate that there has been a violation of a clear legal right and a corresponding breach by the Department of Corrections of an indisputable legal duty. Newell v. Moore, 767 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). However, we would note that Bishop’s confusion is understandable, as it appears from the record that he was given either incorrect or incomplete answers to his requests for instructions regarding the proper method to order the medallion.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Bishop’s petition for writ of mandamus. However, Bishop may file another petition for writ of mandamus should he be unable to procure the medallion through the canteen or another approved source.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw