BRADLEY LAMB, PETITIONER,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, 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 court held that the circuit court erred in denying a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding without addressing two specific claims raised by the inmate.
[1] A circuit court order denying a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding is subject to certiorari review.
[2] Prison officials must prepare a report detailing why a requested videotape did not provide evidence to support an inmate's statement, as required by rule 33-601.305(4), F…
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 intelligenceAn inmate petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding, alleging a videotape was not properly considered and that 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 Prison Disciplinary Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Bradley R. Lamb petitions this court for certiorari review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of mandamus, in which he challenged the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceeding. We grant the petition, quash the circuit court’s order, and remand for further proceedings relating to two issues.
First, Lamb alleged in his petition below that he requested a videotape be produced as evidence at his disciplinary hearing but the videotape was not considered. He argued that despite prison officials’ summary conclusion that the videotape did not support his version of events, the investigator failed to comply with rule 33-601.305(4), Florida Administrative Code, which requires preparation of a report containing “a detailed description of why the tape did not provide evidence to support the inmate’s statement.” Respondent failed to provide the circuit court a copy of that report, and in the absence of that document, the circuit court could not properly address petitioner’s claim.
Secondly, petitioner asserted that the disciplinary action was not reviewed and approved by the institutional warden, as required by rule 33-601.309(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rather than demonstrating otherwise, respondent merely argued that petitioner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning this claim. The circuit court’s order does not address either the merits of petitioner’s claim or respondent’s assertion that it is procedurally barred, and we conclude that under the circumstances, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the circuit court in order to adjudicate this issue. See Morris v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 991 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Presley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 904 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED, the order denying Lamb’s petition for writ of mandamus is QUASHED, and the matter is REMANDED to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LeBOEUF v. McNEIL, 49 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Corr., 910 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), rev. denied, 905 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2005). Because the circuit court’s order does not address this issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand the matter for further proceedings. See Lamb v. McNeil, 21 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certio-rari is GRANTED, the order denying Le-Boeufs petition for writ of mandamus is QUASHED, and the matter is REMANDED to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent herewith. P…
Authorities Cited
- Townsend v. State, 904 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Morris v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 991 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)