×
You have 1 more free article available this month. Subscribe today.
Florida Prisoner's Disciplinary Challenges Reversed for Further Proceedings
Two separate Florida District Court of Appeals decisions have reversed the dismissal of two prisoners' civil actions that challenged disciplinary reports.
Prisoner Craig A. Savery was disciplined for possession of narcotics. Savery's initial appeal to Tomoka Correctional Institution's Warden was denied. His second administrative review to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) was denied as untimely because it was filed more than fifteen days after the previous denial. Savery then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Volusia County Circuit Court, which held the petition was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not filed within 30 days of F.D.O.C. rendering a decision.
On certiorari review, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the denial of Savery's appeal was dated March 24, 2004, but not filed with the agency clerk until March 29. Savery's mandamus petition was filed on April 27, 2004, the court held the circuit court erroneously used the March 24, date to begin running the 30 days limitations period. Under Fla. R. App. P. 9.0201 an order is not rendered until filed with the clerk.
As the denial was not filed with F.D.O.C.'s clerk until March 29, that is the operative date to begin running the limitation period. Accordingly, the court held Savery's mandamus was timely filed on April 27 and ordered it be considered on its merits. See: Savery v. Florida, 884 So.2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
The second case was filed by Thomas P. Wells, who challenged an unspecified disciplinary action taken against him at Martin Correctional Institution. After exhausting administrative remedies, Wells filed a petition of writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment. The Martin County Circuit Court denied the mandamus claim and dismissed the declaratory claim. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that where a petitioner states a cause of action for declaratory judgment, it was error for the court to make a final determination on the disciplinary action before hearing the constitutional challenge to the rule itself. Accordingly, Well's case was reversed for further proceedings. See: Wells v. Harris, 884 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Prisoner Craig A. Savery was disciplined for possession of narcotics. Savery's initial appeal to Tomoka Correctional Institution's Warden was denied. His second administrative review to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) was denied as untimely because it was filed more than fifteen days after the previous denial. Savery then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Volusia County Circuit Court, which held the petition was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not filed within 30 days of F.D.O.C. rendering a decision.
On certiorari review, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the denial of Savery's appeal was dated March 24, 2004, but not filed with the agency clerk until March 29. Savery's mandamus petition was filed on April 27, 2004, the court held the circuit court erroneously used the March 24, date to begin running the 30 days limitations period. Under Fla. R. App. P. 9.0201 an order is not rendered until filed with the clerk.
As the denial was not filed with F.D.O.C.'s clerk until March 29, that is the operative date to begin running the limitation period. Accordingly, the court held Savery's mandamus was timely filed on April 27 and ordered it be considered on its merits. See: Savery v. Florida, 884 So.2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
The second case was filed by Thomas P. Wells, who challenged an unspecified disciplinary action taken against him at Martin Correctional Institution. After exhausting administrative remedies, Wells filed a petition of writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment. The Martin County Circuit Court denied the mandamus claim and dismissed the declaratory claim. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that where a petitioner states a cause of action for declaratory judgment, it was error for the court to make a final determination on the disciplinary action before hearing the constitutional challenge to the rule itself. Accordingly, Well's case was reversed for further proceedings. See: Wells v. Harris, 884 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Savery v. Florida
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 884 So.2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
CRAIG A. SAVERY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
CASE NO. 5D04-2057
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT
884 So. 2d 439; 2004 Fla. App. ; 29 Fla. L. Weekly D 2199
October 1, 2004, Opinion Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Released for Publication October 20, 2004.
PRIOR HISTORY: Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Julianne Piggotte, Judge.
DISPOSITION: PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED, CAUSE REMANDED.
COUNSEL: Craig A. Savery, Daytona Beach, Pro Se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph H. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
JUDGES: ORFINGER, J. SAWAYA, C.J. and PETERSON, J., concur.
OPINIONBY: ORFINGER
OPINION: [*439] ORFINGER, J.
Craig A. Savery seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing his petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Savery, an inmate, was administratively punished by the Department of Corrections (D.O.C.) for possession of narcotics. After his initial appeal to the prison superintendent was denied, he requested a second administrative review by the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, as authorized by D.O.C. rules. In an order dated March 24, 2004, but not filed until March 29, 2004, the Secretary concluded that Savery's request for a second review was untimely because D.O.C. received the request more than fifteen days from the denial of the prior administrative appeal. [**2] See Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.011(1)(b). Savery then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court, seeking to compel the Secretary to exercise his jurisdiction and consider his appeal on the merits. The circuit court denied Savery's petition as untimely, concluding that it was filed more than [*440] thirty days after disposition of the disciplinary proceedings. See § 95.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2004). We disagree, quash the circuit court's order, and remand for further proceedings.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(4), a petition challenging a D.O.C. order entered in a prisoner disciplinary proceeding must be filed within thirty days of rendition of that order. See also § 95.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2004); Ortiz v. Moore, 741 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Rule 9.020(h) defines "rendition" as follows:
(h) Rendition (of an Order). An order rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. . . .
(Emphasis added). Rule 9.020(b) defines "clerk" as follows:
[**3] (b) Clerk. The person or official specifically designated as such by the court or lower tribunal; if no person or official has been specifically so designated, the official or agent who most closely resembles a clerk in the functions performed.
Here, D.O.C. concedes that the Secretary's March 24, 2004 order, which refused to consider Savery's administrative appeal, was not rendered as defined by the rule until March 29, 2004. As a result, Savery's petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the circuit court on April 27, 2004, was timely. See § 95.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(4).
We quash the circuit court's order dismissing Savery's petition for writ of mandamus and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we express no opinion concerning the merits of the petition that Savery filed in the circuit court or with the Secretary of D.O.C.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED, CAUSE REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J. and PETERSON, J., concur.
CASE NO. 5D04-2057
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT
884 So. 2d 439; 2004 Fla. App. ; 29 Fla. L. Weekly D 2199
October 1, 2004, Opinion Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Released for Publication October 20, 2004.
PRIOR HISTORY: Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Julianne Piggotte, Judge.
DISPOSITION: PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED, CAUSE REMANDED.
COUNSEL: Craig A. Savery, Daytona Beach, Pro Se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph H. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
JUDGES: ORFINGER, J. SAWAYA, C.J. and PETERSON, J., concur.
OPINIONBY: ORFINGER
OPINION: [*439] ORFINGER, J.
Craig A. Savery seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing his petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Savery, an inmate, was administratively punished by the Department of Corrections (D.O.C.) for possession of narcotics. After his initial appeal to the prison superintendent was denied, he requested a second administrative review by the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, as authorized by D.O.C. rules. In an order dated March 24, 2004, but not filed until March 29, 2004, the Secretary concluded that Savery's request for a second review was untimely because D.O.C. received the request more than fifteen days from the denial of the prior administrative appeal. [**2] See Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.011(1)(b). Savery then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court, seeking to compel the Secretary to exercise his jurisdiction and consider his appeal on the merits. The circuit court denied Savery's petition as untimely, concluding that it was filed more than [*440] thirty days after disposition of the disciplinary proceedings. See § 95.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2004). We disagree, quash the circuit court's order, and remand for further proceedings.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(4), a petition challenging a D.O.C. order entered in a prisoner disciplinary proceeding must be filed within thirty days of rendition of that order. See also § 95.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2004); Ortiz v. Moore, 741 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Rule 9.020(h) defines "rendition" as follows:
(h) Rendition (of an Order). An order rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. . . .
(Emphasis added). Rule 9.020(b) defines "clerk" as follows:
[**3] (b) Clerk. The person or official specifically designated as such by the court or lower tribunal; if no person or official has been specifically so designated, the official or agent who most closely resembles a clerk in the functions performed.
Here, D.O.C. concedes that the Secretary's March 24, 2004 order, which refused to consider Savery's administrative appeal, was not rendered as defined by the rule until March 29, 2004. As a result, Savery's petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the circuit court on April 27, 2004, was timely. See § 95.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(4).
We quash the circuit court's order dismissing Savery's petition for writ of mandamus and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we express no opinion concerning the merits of the petition that Savery filed in the circuit court or with the Secretary of D.O.C.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED, CAUSE REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J. and PETERSON, J., concur.
Wells v. Harris
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 884 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Wells v. Harris, No. 4D04-197 (Fla.App. 10/13/2004)
[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004
[2] CASE No. 4D04-197
[3] 2004.FL
[4] October 13, 2004
[5] THOMAS PERRY WELLS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES HARRIS, WARDEN, MARTIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, AND JEAN SAGER, LIBRARIAN, MARTIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-436 CA.
[7] Thomas Perry Wills, Jr., Indiantown, pro se.
[8] Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Assistant Attorney General, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee Jean Sager.
[9] Per curiam.
[10] We treat this petition for certiorari as a notice of appeal. Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment in the trial court against the warden of the institution in which he is serving a prison sentence and one of its employees, challenging disciplinary action against him and seeking declaratory judgment that the rule under which he was disciplined is unconstitutional. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandamus as to the disciplinary action and dismissed the declaratory action.
[11] In Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections, 752 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), a prisoner filed a petition for writ of mandamus/declaratory judgment challenging through declaratory judgment, as petitioner does here, the constitutionality of the rule under which he was disciplined, as well as the disciplinary action itself. The trial court dismissed the petition for declaratory judgment. The First District reversed, finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment portion of the petition attacking the validity of the rule itself without providing Smith with the opportunity to address the issue. 752 So. 2d at 60. It held that where the petition stated a cause of action for declaratory judgment, it was error for the court to make a final determination as to the disciplinary action before hearing the prisoner's challenge to the validity of the rule under which he was disciplined. Id.
[12] Smith applies to this case. The order of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[13] WARNER, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004
[2] CASE No. 4D04-197
[3] 2004.FL
[4] October 13, 2004
[5] THOMAS PERRY WELLS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES HARRIS, WARDEN, MARTIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, AND JEAN SAGER, LIBRARIAN, MARTIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-436 CA.
[7] Thomas Perry Wills, Jr., Indiantown, pro se.
[8] Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Assistant Attorney General, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee Jean Sager.
[9] Per curiam.
[10] We treat this petition for certiorari as a notice of appeal. Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment in the trial court against the warden of the institution in which he is serving a prison sentence and one of its employees, challenging disciplinary action against him and seeking declaratory judgment that the rule under which he was disciplined is unconstitutional. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandamus as to the disciplinary action and dismissed the declaratory action.
[11] In Smith v. Florida Department of Corrections, 752 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), a prisoner filed a petition for writ of mandamus/declaratory judgment challenging through declaratory judgment, as petitioner does here, the constitutionality of the rule under which he was disciplined, as well as the disciplinary action itself. The trial court dismissed the petition for declaratory judgment. The First District reversed, finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment portion of the petition attacking the validity of the rule itself without providing Smith with the opportunity to address the issue. 752 So. 2d at 60. It held that where the petition stated a cause of action for declaratory judgment, it was error for the court to make a final determination as to the disciplinary action before hearing the prisoner's challenge to the validity of the rule under which he was disciplined. Id.
[12] Smith applies to this case. The order of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[13] WARNER, STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.