BROOKS
v.
DIXON
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.
A habeas petition challenging close management status placement must exhaust administrative remedies, and claims not subject to dismissal on that ground are reviewed under the certiorari standard rather than habeas review.
[1] A petitioner challenging placement on close management status in a correctional facility must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLorenzo Brooks, an inmate, filed a habeas petition challenging his placement on close management status in the Florida Department of Corrections. The …
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-0208 _____________________________
LORENZO BROOKS,
Appellant,
v.
RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. Melissa G. Olin, Judge.
August 28, 2024
PER CURIAM.
Lorenzo Brooks seeks review of the trial court’s order denying in part and dismissing in part his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged being placed on close management status. As to the trial court’s dismissal of ground three in the habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we affirm without further comment. However, for purposes of the trial court’s denial of grounds one and two, we treat the appeal as a petition invoking our certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits. See Thomas v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 89 So. 3d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the proceeding as an appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of certain mandamus claims for failure
2 to exhaust administrative remedies but reviewing the trial court’s denial on the merits of the remaining claims under the “higher certiorari standard”); see also Owens v. Jones, 200 So. 3d 1289, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). AFFIRMED in part and DENIED on the merits in part. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Lorenzo Brooks, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Charles T. Martin Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Owens v. Jones, 200 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)