DAVID A. DAVIDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
David Davidson appealed a circuit court's dismissal of his mandamus petition challenging a Florida Department of Corrections disciplinary action. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Circuit Court for Leon County has subject matter jurisdiction over such claims, as established in the prior case of Burgess v. Crosby.
The Circuit Court for Leon County has subject matter jurisdiction over mandamus claims challenging DOC disciplinary actions, and Leon County is the proper venue for such claims. The circuit court's dismissal and transfer were reversed.
[1] The Circuit Court for Leon County has subject matter jurisdiction over claims challenging disciplinary actions taken by the Florida Department of Corrections.
[2] A circuit court's prior order dismissing a petition without prejudice does not preclude it from later transferring the petition upon rehearing.
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“This court squarely held in Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) that the Circuit Court for Leon County has subject matter jurisdiction over claims of this nature and that Leon County is the proper venue.”
Establishes the controlling precedent that directly resolves the jurisdictional issue in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavidson filed a mandamus petition in the Circuit Court for Leon County challenging a disciplinary action taken against him by the Florida Department …
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 Indigency Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Davidson petitioned the Circuit Court for Leon County for a writ of mandamus, challenging a disciplinary action taken against him by the Florida Department of Corrections. The circuit court concluded that it was not the proper forum and dismissed the petition without prejudice to Davidson’s right to file a complaint or petition in the sentencing court. On rehearing, the court adhered to its conclusion regarding the forum but transferred the petition, rather than dismissing without prejudice. Davidson appeals and we have jurisdiction in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A). We reverse.
This court squarely held in Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) that the Circuit Court for Leon County has subject matter jurisdiction over claims of this nature and that Leon County is the proper venue. The circuit court, in the order here on appeal, expressed concern that the matter was still in doubt after Burgess in light of certain language in Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (2003). In Burgess, however, this court explained that the Supreme Court’s holding in Schmidt was limited to the question of the applicability of section 57.085, Florida Statutes, in determining a complainant’s indigency in this type of case. The Supreme Court has denied rehearing in Schmidt and, despite the certification of a question of great importance by this court in Burgess, no further review was sought by either of the parties to that decision. Contrary to the circuit court’s disposition in this case, the matter is not in doubt, but is controlled by this court’s decision in Burgess. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions to the circuit court to take jurisdiction over Davidson’s petition and proceed to a disposition on the merits.
REVERSED.
WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Corbblin Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)…oner Indigency Statute should not apply.” Id. .The First District Court of Appeal has stated that venue for such cases lies in Leon County. See, e.g., Fla. Dept, of Corrections v. Hanson, 903 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Davidson v. Crosby, 883 So. 2d 866, 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Burgess, 870 So. 2d at 220 n. 5. The decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal on this issue are mixed. See, e.g., Stovall, 860 So. 2d at 9 (en banc) (stating that venue lies in Leon County); but see Griffith v. Cros…
-
Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003). Upon consideration of appellee’s concession of error, the order of dismissal is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for consideration of the merits of appellant’s petition. See Davidson v. Crosby, 883 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430, appellant also seeks review of the circuit court’s order of indigen-cy. The circuit court found appellant unable to p…
-
Smith v. Crosby, 893 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)