DAVID HUFFMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
The appellate court reviewed a lower court's decision to deny a prisoner's request to amend his complaint and dismiss his case on the merits. The court found the lower court erred by not allowing the prisoner to reply to the Department of Corrections' response before ruling on the merits.
The appellate court held that the circuit court erred in denying relief on the merits without affording the petitioner the opportunity to reply to the Department of Corrections' response. The denial of the motion for leave to amend was not in error.
[1] A circuit court errs by denying relief on the merits without affording a petitioner the opportunity to reply to a response filed by the opposing party in an extraordinary…
[2] An extraordinary writ proceeding in the circuit court seeking an appellate remedy is governed by the rules of appellate procedure.
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“We agree with petitioner, however, that the circuit court erred in denying relief on the merits without affording him the opportunity to reply to DOC’s response.”
Establishes the appellate court's finding that the lower court made an error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Huffman challenged prison disciplinary proceedings and a rule prohibiting "lying to staff," claiming it violated his free speech rights. He soug…
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 Right Of Free Speech cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Huffman filed a petition/complaint in the circuit court challenging the outcome of certain prison disciplinary proceedings and asserting that the Department of Corrections’ rule prohibiting “lying to staff’ caused him uncertainty concerning the exercise of his right to free speech. He here seeks certiorari review of an order denying his motion for leave to amend and denying relief on the merits.
We find no error in the denial of Huffman’s request for leave to amend, which was made after the filing of DOC’s response below.
We agree with petitioner, however, that the circuit court erred in denying relief on the merits without affording him the opportunity to reply to DOC’s response. An extraordinary writ proceeding in the circuit court which seeks an appellate remedy is governed by the rules of appellate procedure. See Newell v. Moore, 826 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(b) provides that except in circumstances not relevant here, the service of a motion tolls the time schedule of an appellate proceeding. Huffman’s motion was served prior to the expiration of the time for filing a reply set by the circuit court, and thus tolled the time to reply. After it denied the motion for leave to amend, the circuit court should have allowed Huffman the opportunity to reply before disposing of the matter on the merits. Cf. Wilkinson v. McDonough, 960 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)(where motion for continuance to file reply was served before time for filing of reply had expired, court should not have ruled on the merits without first ruling on the motion for continuance).
Its failure to do so constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Jones v. Singletary, 709 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bard v. Wolson, 687 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED, the circuit court’s order is QUASHED, and the cause is REMANDED with directions to permit petitioner the opportunity to file a reply.
WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. McNEIL, 44 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ing the petition for writ of mandamus without affording petitioner the opportunity to reply to the response. See Bard v. Wolson, 687 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Salow v. State, 766 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Huffman v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 981 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Accordingly, the circuit court’s order denying the petition for writ of mandamus is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED. THOMAS, BENTON, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Bard v. Wolson, 687 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Newell v. Moore, 826 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Wilkinson v. McDONOUGH, 960 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Jones v. Singletary, 709 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)