11-3090 BOBBY THOMAS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2012 » 11-3090 BOBBY THOMAS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 11-3090

Case Date: 06/06/2012

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BOBBY THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed June 6, 2012. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James O. Shelfer, Judge. Bobby Thomas, pro se, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Eric M. Neiberger, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-3090

CLARK, J. In the circuit court, Bobby Thomas sought a writ of mandamus to overturn final agency action by the Florida Department of Corrections in prison disciplinary proceedings. He now challenges the circuit court's final Order Dismissing in Part

and Denying in Part his petition for writ of mandamus. Pursuant to Whisner v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), this proceeding is treated as an appeal of the circuit court's dismissal of certain claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but is reviewed under the higher certiorari standard for the denials on the merits of the remaining claims. Mora v. McDonough, 956 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The circuit court did not err by finding that Appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on four of his claims: that the Department failed to

comply with rules 33-601.305(2); 33-601.307(3); and 33-601.308, Florida Administrative Code; and that the evidence of the corrections officer was insufficient to support the disciplinary team's finding of guilt. In his appeal of these rulings, Thomas did not argue any error in the circuit court's finding that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. He merely reiterated the arguments presented to the circuit court in his petition for writ of mandamus. As stated in Steele v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 596 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992): The appellate court is a court of review, not simply another forum to which the dissatisfied litigant may submit his or her list of grievances in hopes of a more favorable outcome. For the most part, the

appellate court is concerned with questions pertaining to whether or not the proceedings below were carried out in accordance with the 2

law. It is generally not a question of whether the appellate court agrees or disagrees with the result reached in a particular case, but whether that result was reached in a fair manner and was within the jurisdiction and authority of the court or agency whose decision is being appealed. This review function of the appellate court applies to prison inmates challenging agency decisions of the Department of Corrections just as it applies to other pro se litigants challenging agency actions of other administrative agencies. Even if Appellant had challenged the circuit court's finding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the record supports the court's finding of no exhaustion. The circuit court correctly dismissed these claims and no error is apparent from the record. Considering Appellant's challenge to the circuit court's denial on the merits of his other claims -- that the disciplinary team's determination was contrary to the evidence presented by Thomas and that the agency was required to use the informal disciplinary actions provided for by rule 33-601.303(1), Florida Administrative Code prior to the formal proceedings at issue -- no basis for the issuance of the writ of certiorari is presented. The circuit court complied with the procedural due process set out in rule 9.100(f)

Download 11-3090 BOBBY THOMAS, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS.pdf