GARY WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH S. TUCKER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Disciplinary Confinement cases and more on FLexlaw
Gary Williams, an inmate serving a parole-eligible life sentence, appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus challenging a disciplinary report that resulted in him being placed in disciplinary confinement for 60 days. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking our certiorari jurisdiction,* and deny the petition on the merits because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in determining that Williams failed to demonstrate any liberty interest implicating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486-87, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that 30-day disciplinary confinement “did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest,” and further stating that “[t]he chance that a finding of misconduct will alter the balance [in consideration of parole] is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause”).
DENIED.
DAVIS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 197 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…risoner’s loss of gain time. In a number of recent cases, we have held that absent a showing of such [*1175] a liberty interest, a prisoner lacks even minimal due process rights, and thus is not entitled to mandamus . relief. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus because the prisoner, who was subjected to 60 days’ disciplinary confinement, “failed to demonstrate any liberty interest implicating the protections of the Due Proce…
-
Parker v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 369 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…ief, when mandamus was used to challenge a decision of an administrative agency, is by petition for writ of certiorari), approved, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998). We have consistently reviewed similar orders via certiorari. E.g., Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Plymel v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 242, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). A couple of our more recent panel decisions hold to the contrary. See Sheffield v. State, 369 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (concluding order was not render…
-
Gardener v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 178 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…Offender Review (formerly Florida Parole Commission) applies equally to this Court’s certio-rari review of a circuit court’s appellate ruling' on an administrative prison disciplinary action by the Department of Corrections. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Cason v. McDonough, 943 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, the circuit court provided Petitioner with procedural due process. As .explained in Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approve…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995)
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)