DONALD WATERS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Donald Waters sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Corrections to consider his grievance appeal on the merits after the circuit court dismissed his petition. The court reversed, finding that Waters timely mailed his grievance appeal under the prison mailbox rule and that the Department failed to rebut his assertion of timely mailing.
The court reversed the dismissal of the mandamus petition, holding that Waters had a clear legal right to the writ because he timely delivered his grievance appeal to prison officials for mailing pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, and the Department failed to provide evidence rebutting his assertion of timely mailing. The court affirmed the circuit court's refusal to appoint counsel and address constitutional arguments, as mandamus is not the proper remedy for such claims.
[1] A grievance appeal is considered timely filed under the prison mailbox rule when it is turned over to prison officials for mailing prior to the expiration of the filing d…
[2] A circuit court errs in dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus to compel a department to consider a grievance appeal on the merits when the petitioner demonstrates ti…
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“Despite the assertion and presentation of evidence that appellant's formal grievance appeal was timely turned over to prison officials for mailing pursuant to the 'prison mailbox rule' and Gonzalez v. State, 604 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the circuit court dismissed his petition for writ of mandamus”
Establishes the core issue: whether timely submission to prison officials for mailing satisfies filing deadlines under the prison mailbox rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaters submitted a formal grievance appeal and presented evidence that he timely turned it over to prison officials for mailing pursuant to the prison…
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 Mailbox Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Despite the assertion and presentation of evidence that appellant’s formal grievance appeal was timely turned over to prison officials for mailing pursuant to the “prison mailbox rule” and Gonzalez v. State, 604 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the circuit court dismissed his petition for writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Corrections (Department) to consider his grievance appeal on the merits. Finding that appellant failed to take advantage of an optional internal logging/tracking process and instead sent his grievance appeal through the U.S. mail which was receipted at the central office in Tallahassee after the deadline, the circuit court concluded appellant had “no clear legal right” to the issuance of a writ. See Hatten v. State, 561 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1990). For the same reasons expressed in Waters v. Dept, of Corrections, — So.3d - (Fla. 1st DCA, Opinion filed this date), including the continued viability of Gonzalez, and because the Department failed to provide any evidence to rebut appellant’s assertion of timely mailing, we reverse the order dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus and remand for entry of the writ.
However, appellant also challenges the circuit court’s refusal to appoint counsel, grant an injunction against retaliation, or otherwise address constitutional arguments raised in the petition, and the court’s adoption of the Department’s draft order. Other than as discussed above, we find no error in the circuit court’s actions, agree that mandamus is not the proper remedy to address constitutional issues, and otherwise affirm the circuit court’s orders.
REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
WOLF, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waters v. Dep't of Corr., 306 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
-
Domonique Smith v. State, 146 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. On our own motion, we treat the petition for certiorari as a notice of appeal, and reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with Waters v. Department of Corrections, 144 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We also deny appellant’s request for costs without prejudice to the filing of a proper motion with the lower tribunal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(a). THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1990)
- Gonzalez v. State, 604 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)