SYLVESTER L. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT 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.
A prison inmate challenged an administrative rule requiring inmates to pay for copies of records, arguing it was arbitrary, capricious, and violated his due process and access-to-courts rights. The court affirmed the lower court's rejection of the challenge, holding that indigent inmates are not entitled to free copies of records and that copy charges do not deprive inmates of constitutional rights.
The copy charge requirement does not violate an inmate's constitutional rights. Indigent inmates are not generally entitled to free copies of records held by governmental entities, and the imposition of a copy charge does not deprive an inmate of a constitutional right to access the courts or due process.
[1] Indigent inmates are not generally entitled to free copies of records held by governmental entities.
[2] The imposition of a copy charge for inmate records does not deprive an inmate of a constitutional right.
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“indigent inmates are not generally entitled to free copies of records held by governmental entities, and that the imposition of a copy charge does not deprive the inmate of a constitutional right”
This establishes the core legal principle that copy charges for indigent inmates do not violate constitutional rights, citing Roesch v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSylvester Brown, an indigent prison inmate, sought copies of medical records to pursue a medical malpractice action. The Department of Corrections req…
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 Inmate Trust Account cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
The appellant is a prison inmate challenging an order entered on his request for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus, whereby the appellant sought to establish that the copy charge in Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-601.901(2) is unlawful and unconstitutional. The appellant contended that this rule, as well as section 945.10(3), Florida Statutes, is arbitrary and capricious and violates his right to due process. Among other contentions, the appellant also asserted that the statute is unduly vague, and that there is no rational basis for the rule. In addition, he referred to the right of access to the courts, while maintaining that he needs copies of medical records so he can pursue a medical malpractice action. The appellant indicated that he is indigent, and argued that the Department of Corrections should not be allowed to impose the copy charge in rule 33-601.901(2).
The appellant suggests that instead of requiring payment of the charge in rule 33.601.901(2), the Department could place a lien on his inmate trust account. But although such a lien is elsewhere provided for in certain other circumstances, rule 33.601.901(2) does not authorize that procedure and specifically requires payment of the copying cost. And the Department did not preclude the appellant’s access to the records, which have been available for the appellant’s inspection. In Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1994), the supreme court indicated that indigent inmates are not generally entitled to free copies of records held by governmental entities, and that the imposition of a copy charge does not deprive the inmate of a constitutional right. See also Elam, v. State, 689 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court made a similar ruling in the present case, and properly rejected the appellant’s claims for relief from the copy charge in rule 33-601.901(2).
The appealed order is affirmed.
DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Elam v. State, 689 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)