CHARLES HAWKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., WILLIE L. FLOYD, SR., JEAN DAUPHIN, AND MARILYN F. BURNS, 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.
A state prisoner appealed the dismissal with prejudice of his civil action challenging prison medical care. The appellate court held that while mandamus relief was properly denied because prisons have no duty to provide specific treatments, the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice because the prisoner should have been allowed to amend his complaint to pursue monetary damages under a different legal theory.
The court held that while mandamus relief was properly denied because prisons have no duty to provide particular treatment, the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice because Hawkins should have been allowed to amend his complaint to pursue monetary damages under a different legal theory, and absent a responsive pleading, the trial court had no discretion to deny amendment.
[1] A prison does not have a duty to provide a prisoner with particular medical treatment.
[2] A complaint seeking monetary damages should not be dismissed with prejudice when the plaintiff has not yet filed a responsive pleading.
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“A party should be allowed to amend its complaint if it may be able to allege additional facts to support its cause of action or another cause of action under a different legal theory.”
Establishes the standard for allowing amendment of complaints and the basis for reversing the dismissal with prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Hawkins, a state prisoner, filed a civil action against prison officials complaining about the medical care he received. Hawkins had received …
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 Responsive Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles Hawkins, a state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of a civil action in which he complained about the medical care that he has received from the prison. Hawkins has received tests and treatment, but he wants to receive different tests and see a specialist. He also requested monetary damages. The circuit court treated his complaint as a petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed it with prejudice.
We conclude that there was no error in denying mandamus relief because the prison does not have a duty to provide particular treatment. However, because Hawkins was also seeking monetary damages, the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Hawkins should have been allowed to amend his complaint. A party should be allowed to amend its complaint if it may be able to allege additional facts to support its cause of action or another cause of action under a different legal theory. Fla. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. State, 832 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Because no responsive pleading had been filed, the trial court had no discretion to deny Hawkins’ request to amend his complaint. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a); Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 2005 WL 1574249 (Fla. July 7, 2005). Even if his motion for rehearing was treated as an amendment, he should have been given another opportunity to amend because he believed that he needed leave of the court and he has not abused the privilege. Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). By so ruling, we are not passing on the validity, vel non, of any amended complaint.
The circuit court’s order is reversed and this cause remanded to allow Hawkins to amend his complaint.
POLEN, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. Long, 111 So. 3d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…e right to amend once.” Id. at 567. The trial court summarily dismissed the count, expressing that there is no viable claim, before allowing Reed the opportunity to amend her pleading to support the claim. This was error. See id.; Hawkins v. Crosby, 910 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (because no responsive pleading had been filed, the trial court had no discretion to deny a request to amend the complaint); Williams v. Gaffin Indus. Servs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 1027, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (where a responsive…
-
Forney v. Crews, 112 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…t” of prisoners serving sentences in state custody. See Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The Department cannot be compelled by writ of mandamus to provide an inmate with a particular medical treatment. Hawkins v. Crosby, 910 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Because operation of the state prison system is within the province of the executive and legislative branches of government, the judicial branch has “no authority to dictate” how the detaining authority or its private designates…
-
IF SIX Were Nine, LLC v. Lincoln Rd. III, LLC, 242 So. 3d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…plaint once as a matter of right before any responsive pleading had been filed. Thus, the trial court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss was the first time the sufficiency of the operative complaint had been tested. See Hawkins v. Crosby, 910 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that even if the plaintiff amended his complaint once as a matter of right pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), he should have been given another opportunity to amend because he had not abused the p…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)
- Fla. Nat'l Org. FOR Women, Inc. v. State, 832 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Nat'l Loan Invs., L.P. v. Joymar Assocs., 767 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)