SHAWN R. GRIFFITH, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., AS 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.
Griffith petitioned for a writ of mandamus to challenge prison disciplinary action resulting in forfeiture of gain time. The trial court dismissed his petition, mistakenly treating a venue problem as a jurisdictional defect. The appellate court reversed, holding that the proper remedy for improper venue is transfer, not dismissal.
The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for transfer. All Florida circuit courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, so this was a venue issue, not a jurisdictional one. The proper remedy for improper venue is transfer to the correct venue, not dismissal.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus directed to the Department of Corrections must be filed in the county where the petitioner is incarcerated or in the county where the Depa…
[2] Venue, not jurisdiction, determines the proper location for filing a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections.
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“Venue is one thing; jurisdiction is another. They are not synonymous. Venue concerns 'the privilege of being accountable to a Court in a particular location[.]' Jurisdiction is 'the power to act[,]' the authority to adjudicate the subject matter.”
Establishes the critical distinction between venue and jurisdiction that underlies the court's reasoning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGriffith filed a mandamus petition in Leon County circuit court on October 6, 2003, seeking review of Department of Corrections disciplinary action th…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Shawn R. Griffith challenges the trial court order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice. We reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
These proceedings began when Griffith sought review of prison disciplinary action that resulted in the forfeiture of gain time. He filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Second. Judicial Circuit Court in Leon County on October 6, 2003. On November 13, 2003, the circuit court in Leon County dismissed Griffith’s petition and directed him to refile the action in his original sentencing court. Griffith complied, refil ing the petition in the Tenth Judicial Circuit in Highlands County. On April 16, 2004, that court dismissed Griffith’s petition without prejudice, stating that such a petition must be filed in the county where Griffith was incarcerated. Citing Mattern v. State, 829 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the court stated that Griffith could still “file [his petition] in the correct jurisdiction.” Pursuant to Mattem, “[a]ny petition for writ of mandamus directed to the Department of Corrections must be filed in the county where appellant is incarcerated.” Id. at 937. Griffith is incarcerated in Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, which is located in Union County.
Initially we note that this is not a question of jurisdiction, but rather one of venue. “Venue is one thing; jurisdiction is another. They are not synonymous. Venue concerns ‘the privilege of being accountable to a Court in a particular location[.]’ Jurisdiction is ‘the power to act[,]’ the authority to adjudicate the subject matter.” Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So. 2d 504, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (quoting Bambrick v. Bambrick, 165 So. 2d 449, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)). Pursuant to article V, section 5 of the Florida Constitution, all circuit courts in the State of Florida have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. The question, however, is where the Department of Corrections (“the Department”) should be made to answer the petition, which is an issue of venue.
Where an inmate seeks mandamus review of a decision of the Department regarding the forfeiture of gain time as the result of a prison disciplinary matter, the proper venue is laid either in the county where the inmate is incarcerated or in the county where the Department’s headquarters are located. Eastman v. State, 883 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Thus, the Highlands County circuit court was correct in concluding that Griffith’s petition was not properly filed in Highlands. County, which is the county where he was sentenced.
However, the court erred in characterizing this as a jurisdictional issue and in dismissing, rather than transferring, the case to the proper venue, which would be either Union County, where Griffith is incarcerated, or Leon County, where the Department is headquartered. See McClain v. Crawford, 815 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[T]he remedy for improper venue is a transfer to the proper venue, not dismissal.”); Hill v. Fields, 813 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Carr v. Stetson, 741 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating that dismissal is disfavored); Jerolaman v. Van Buren, 512 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to transfer the cause to a correct venue.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corbblin Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)…the court. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(b) (emphasis added). This rule gives a court authority to transfer a case when improper venue is sought; and transfer, rather than dismissal, is the preferred remedy in such a case. See generally Griffith v. Crosby, 898 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that, in a prisoner’s challenge to a sentence-reducing credit determination by the Department, the circuit court in Highlands County, where the petitioner was sentenced, erred in dismissing the case rather than transferri…1 / 2
-
Sullivan v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 920 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…en dismissed the petition without prejudice to Sullivan’s right to file a mandamus petition in the Leon County Circuit Court. Rather than dismissing the petition, the circuit court should have transferred it to Leon County. See Griffith v. Crosby, 898 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The question of where the Commission should be made to answer the petition is an issue of venue, not jurisdiction. “[T]he remedy for improper venue is a transfer to the proper venue, not dismissal.” McClain v. Crawford, 815…
-
Rodriguez v. Crosby, 911 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…venue was improper in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and that jurisdiction was proper in the Second Judicial Circuit. The appellee properly confesses error, conceding that venue was improper in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. See Griffith v. Crosby, 898 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(“Where an inmate seeks mandamus review of a decision of the Department regarding the forfeiture of gain time as the result of a prison disciplinary matter, the proper venue is laid either in the county where the inmate is inc…
Authorities Cited
- Stovall v. Sergeant William Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Bambrick v. Bambrick, 165 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Broward Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Carr v. Stetson, 741 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Burkes v. State, 815 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Jerolaman v. Frieda van Buren, 512 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Eastman v. State, 883 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Hill v. Carissa Fields, 813 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Mattern v. State, 829 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Ponsoldt v. The Cadle Co., 829 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)