Flournoy v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flournoy v. Moore

752 So. 2d 35, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 691, 2000 WL 62975

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-102

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 35 (Flournoy 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

Flournoy v. Moore, 752 So. 2d 35, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 691, 2000 WL 62975 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in Case No. 98-2611. In this petition, appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, institution of criminal charges against prison officials and an order compelling the prison officials to arrange for appellant to be examined by a qualified eye specialist. We affirm.

The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to inquire into the legality of the petitioner’s present detention. Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So.2d 653 (Fla.1954). It should not be used to invoke questions not affecting the lawfulness of appellant’s custody and detention. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 136-137, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934), overruled in part on other grounds, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968). More specifically, it is not a vehicle to recover money damages. Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

In his argument before this court, appellant has confused the petition filed in Case [36]*36No. 98-2611 with an earlier petition he filed in Case No. 98-2228. We do not address his arguments pertaining to Case No. 98-2223 because only the validity of the order in Case No. 98-2611 is before us.

AFFIRMED.

KAHN AND BENTON, JJ., CONCUR and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B„ Senior Judge, CONCURS.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in Case No. 98-2611. In this petition, appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, institution of criminal charges against prison officials and an order compelling the prison officials to arrange for appellant to be examined by a qualified eye specialist. We affirm.

The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to inquire into the legality of the petitioner’s present detention. Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So.2d 653 (Fla.1954). It should not be used to invoke questions not affecting the lawfulness of appellant’s custody and detention. McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 136-137, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934), overruled in part on other grounds, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968). More specifically, it is not a vehicle to recover money damages. Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

In his argument before this court, appellant has confused the petition filed in Case [36]*36No. 98-2611 with an earlier petition he filed in Case No. 98-2228. We do not address his arguments pertaining to Case No. 98-2223 because only the validity of the order in Case No. 98-2611 is before us.

AFFIRMED.

KAHN AND BENTON, JJ., CONCUR and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B„ Senior Judge, CONCURS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 35, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 691, 2000 WL 62975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flournoy-v-moore-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack