GLENN SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER HERNANDEZ, AS PUBLIC RECORDS CUSTODIAN FOR MOORE HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 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.
Glenn Smith, an incarcerated state prisoner, sought a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of a corrections officer's personnel file. The circuit court denied the petition, finding the information exempt or subject to discretionary disclosure under Florida law, and designated Smith a vexatious litigant based on his pattern of frivolous litigation. The appellate court affirmed both rulings.
The court affirmed the denial of mandamus relief, finding the requested personnel information either exempt under section 119.071 as identifying information of corrections officers or subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3). The court also upheld the vexatious litigant designation under section 68.093, finding no constitutional infirmity in the statute or its application.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus may be denied if the information sought is exempt under statutory provisions or subject to discretionary disclosure.
[2] A prisoner seeking to view an employee's personnel file must establish a basis for mandamus relief.
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“the information sought was either exempt under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2007), as identifying information of active or former corrections officers, or was subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3)”
Establishes the legal basis for denying Smith's public records request
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlenn Smith is serving a life sentence at Martin Correctional Institution for sexual battery of a minor. He requested access to the personnel file of …
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 Public Records Request cases and more on FLexlaw
Glenn Smith is a state prisoner who is serving a life sentence at Martin Correctional Institution for sexual battery upon a victim under twelve years old. Jennifer Hernandez is the public records custodian for Moore Haven Correctional Facility. Smith filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Hernandez to comply with Smith’s request to view the personnel file of a Moore Haven employee who Smith contends was terminated in 2000 “for violating agency policy.” The circuit court denied Smith’s petition, finding that the information sought was either exempt under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2007), as identifying information of active or former corrections officers, or was subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3). The court concluded that Smith did not establish a basis for mandamus relief. The court also entered an order finding Smith to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 68.093, Florida Statutes (2007), and prohibiting him from commencing pro se actions without leave of court. The court noted that Smith has filed over 100 cases in the past five years in Florida and federal courts and has already been declared a vexatious litigant in another county as set forth in Smith v. Fisher, 965 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
On appeal, Smith challenges the propriety of the denial of his records request and the determination that he is a vexatious litigant. Smith also raises constitutional challenges to sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). We find no error in the court’s denial of Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus. Further, we find no constitutional infirmity in sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that Smith is a vexatious litigant and that the court did not infringe on his constitutional rights in so finding.
Affirmed.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Capt. L.L. Hatcher, 117 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ocess, was not impartial, and abused its discretion in not appointing counsel for him. We also reject Appellant’s argument that section 68.093 is unconstitutional. See Smith v. Fisher, 965 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Smith v. Hernandez, 20 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). AFFIRMED. VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…0 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("To the 4 The State does not advise us, and there is nothing in our limited record indicating that the trial court has deemed Mr. Smith a vexatious litigant under section 68.093, Florida Statutes (2018). Cf. Smith v. Hernandez, 20 So. 3d 905, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("On appeal, Smith challenges the propriety of the denial of his records request and the determination that he is a vexatious litigant. . . . We find no error in the court's denial of Smith's petition for writ of mandamus. .…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Neil A. Fisher, M.D., 965 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)