STEPHEN MADDRIE, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
Stephen Maddrie sought mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to render a final, appealable order in his underlying case against the Department of Corrections. The court held that while the circuit court had not yet rendered a final order, mandamus relief was premature because Maddrie had not made a clear and express request to the trial court to do so.
The court denied the petition for mandamus relief. While the circuit court had not rendered a final order disposing of Maddrie's petition for declaratory judgment, mandamus relief was premature because Maddrie failed to demonstrate that he made a clear and express request to the trial court to render a final, appealable order.
[1] Mandamus is available to compel a lower tribunal to render an appealable order under appropriate circumstances.
[2] An order is not final if it does not expressly dispose of all pending claims, including petitions for declaratory judgment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Under appropriate circumstances, the remedy of mandamus is available to compel a lower tribunal to render an appealable order.”
Establishes the general availability of mandamus as a remedy to compel final orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court previously granted the respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings, but that order did not expressly dispose of Maddrie's peti…
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 Petition For Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Maddrie seeks mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to render a final order in the proceedings below.
The circuit court previously granted respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, but its order was not a final order because it did not expressly dispose of Maddrie’s petition for declaratory judgment. See, e.g., Henry v. Finta, 559 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Accordingly, Maddrie’s appeal of the order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings was dismissed by this court as premature. See Maddrie v. McDonough, 933 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
By his present petition, Maddrie now seeks to compel the circuit court to render a final, appealable order. Under appropriate circumstances, the remedy of mandamus is available to compel a lower tribunal to render an appealable order. See State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Respondent nonetheless asserts that mandamus relief is unnecessary here because the circuit court has now rendered an order striking petitioner’s filings made after entry of the order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and this ruling “operatively” constitutes a final order. We decline to adopt respondent’s position in this regard, since like the order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the order striking petitioner’s subsequent filings neither dismisses the proceeding below nor denies the request for declaratory relief. As such, it cannot fairly be viewed as representing the end of judicial labor in the matter.
However, we see no indication that petitioner has made a clear and express request of the trial court to render a final, appealable order, and in the absence of such a showing, the granting of mandamus relief is unwarranted. See Medberry v. Circuit Court for Brevard County, 762 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Accordingly, while we conclude that the circuit court has not yet rendered a final order disposing of Maddrie’s petition for declaratory judgment, we further conclude that the request for mandamus relief is premature in that no showing has been made that the circuit court has neglected to address or refused to comply with an express and distinct demand to render a final order. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.
ERVIN, ALLEN, and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atrium Med. Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, 367 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…th no other adequate remedy, whereby the MSP entities get the entirety of the relief they seek in the pure bill of discovery, but the Medical Providers have no way to seek review. Under these circumstances, mandamus lies. See Maddrie v. McDonough, 945 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“Under appropriate circumstances, the remedy of mandamus is available to compel a lower tribunal to render an appealable order.”); see also State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“If a trial court fails or…
-
Da-Vi Nails, Inc. v. Davi Nails Salon & SPA, LLC, 131 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…e order final. Consequently, this appeal is premature, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100. See Maddrie v. McDonough, 945 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely is denied. LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Medberry v. Cir. Court FOR Brevard Cnty., 762 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Hilton Henry v. Finta, 559 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Robertson v. State, 559 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Maddrie v. McDONOUGH, 933 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)