THOMAS A. SABA, PETITIONER,
v.
JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA, SPRINT PCS AND FEDERAL EXPRESS, RESPONDENTS
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.
Petitioner Saba sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a circuit court order denying his indigency certification for appeal. The court held that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy when a trial court has rendered a ruling on indigency, as the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies through the appellate process.
Mandamus will not lie when a trial court has rendered a ruling on indigency, whether correct or not, because the petitioner has an adequate remedy through the appellate process and the rules governing review of indigency determinations.
[1] Mandamus will not lie when a trial court has rendered a ruling, regardless of its correctness, as an adequate remedy by appeal exists.
[2] A party seeking review of a trial court's determination of indigency for appeal has an adequate remedy by appeal of the order of dismissal or by motion for review under F…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the trial court has rendered a ruling, whether correct or not, mandamus will not lie.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that mandamus is not available to challenge trial court rulings on indigency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSaba filed a complaint seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief in circuit court. The trial court found him not indigent and ordered him to pay …
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of mandamus, Thomas A. Saba challenges an order of the Circuit Court for Walton County which denied his request to be certified as indigent for appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition.
Saba’s complaint in circuit court seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. He was found not to be indigent and was ordered to pay the circuit court’s filing fee. He appealed that order to this court in case number 1D02-5287 but he was ordered to pay the filing fee for the appeal when the circuit court again found him not to be indigent. His motion for review of that order was facially insufficient and was denied. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for this reason.1
Saba then filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Florida, which transferred it to this court for consideration. According to petitioner, he seeks relief because the trial judge has attempted to “illegally seal the plaintiffs fate by denying indigent status for appellate purposes.” Because the trial court has rendered a ruling, whether correct or not, mandamus will not lie. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Instead, Saba has an adequate remedy by appeal. If he is unable to pay the applicable fee, his circuit court action will be dismissed and he may appeal that final order. If he is also found not to be indigent for the appeal, his remedy is a motion for review in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430. Thus, if the circuit court is incorrect in concluding that Saba is not indigent, the matter will eventually be resolved in his favor. See Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). This mandamus petition, however, is not the appropriate vehicle for Saba to obtain relief if he is correct in his challenge to the circuit court rulings on indi-gency.
PETITION DENIED.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and LEWIS, JJ., concur. . It is unlikely that this court would have found it had jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s order by appeal or by writ of certiorari. See Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The filing fee is a threshold matter which must be first resolved before the appealability of the order is reviewed. In case number 1D02-5287, the proceeding never moved beyond the issue of this court’s filing fee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crum v. Elzie S. Sanders, 909 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Saba v. Bush, 883 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)(stating that a petition for writ of mandamus is not available if there exists an adequate remedy at law). KAHN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Mason v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…y by appeal. See City of Coral Gables v. State ex rel. Worley, 44 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 1950) (“The relator must establish a clear right to [] issuance [of the writ of mandamus] and further show that no other adequate remedy exists.”); Saba v. Bush, 883 So. 2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (denying petition where Petitioner had adequate remedy by appeal). LEWIS, ROBERTS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R.…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Campion, 757 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Kramp v. Osee R. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)