Bishop v. Moore

848 So. 2d 388, 2003 WL 21414675
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 20, 2003
Docket2D02-4654
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 848 So. 2d 388 (Bishop v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bishop v. Moore, 848 So. 2d 388, 2003 WL 21414675 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

848 So.2d 388 (2003)

Willie James BISHOP, Appellant,
v.
Michael W. MOORE, Secretary Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 2D02-4654.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 20, 2003.

*389 Willie J. Bishop, Bushnell, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Philip Jay Spengler II, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Willie James Bishop appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. Bishop is seeking to obtain a talisman medallion, which he claims he is allowed to possess pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-602, because it is a religious medallion. Although he is allowed to possess such a medallion, Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-602.201(15)(d) requires that he acquire the medallion through an authorized vendor, canteen purchase, or bona fide religious organization. In his petition, Bishop sought to compel the Department of Corrections to produce its list of approved vendors from whom he could order the medallion and to show why a pawn shop is not an approved vendor.

We affirm because it appears that Bishop can order a talisman medallion from the prison canteen. Therefore, he has failed to demonstrate that there has been a violation of a clear legal right and a corresponding breach by the Department of Corrections of an indisputable legal duty. Newell v. Moore, 767 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). However, we would note that Bishop's confusion is understandable, as it appears from the record that he was given either incorrect or incomplete answers to his requests for instructions regarding the proper method to order the medallion.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Bishop's petition for writ of mandamus. However, Bishop may file another petition for writ of mandamus should he be unable to procure the medallion through the canteen or another approved source.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bisson v. McNeil
4 So. 3d 739 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
848 So. 2d 388, 2003 WL 21414675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-moore-fladistctapp-2003.