Owens v. Jones

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Owens v. Jones

200 So. 3d 1289, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14751, 2016 WL 5818547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 2016

DocketNo. 1D16-1098

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 So. 3d 1289 (Owens v. Jones) 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

Owens v. Jones, 200 So. 3d 1289, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14751, 2016 WL 5818547 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Owens, an inmate who challenged in the trial court four disciplinary reports, appeals the order dismissing in part and denying in part his petition for writ of mandamus. Because only the trial court’s denials of claims on the merits are being challenged, we treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits without further discussion. See Thomas v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 89 So.3d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reviewing the trial court’s order dismissing in part and denying in part a mandamus petition and treating as an appeal the dismissal of claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but reviewing under the certiorari standard the denial of claims on the merits); see also Williams v. Tucker, 87 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the appeal as a petition invoking the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction where the trial court denied the mandamus petition upon finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any liberty interest to challenge his disciplinary report).

DENIED on the merits.

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Owens, an inmate who challenged in the trial court four disciplinary reports, appeals the order dismissing in part and denying in part his petition for writ of mandamus. Because only the trial court’s denials of claims on the merits are being challenged, we treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits without further discussion. See Thomas v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 89 So.3d 300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reviewing the trial court’s order dismissing in part and denying in part a mandamus petition and treating as an appeal the dismissal of claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but reviewing under the certiorari standard the denial of claims on the merits); see also Williams v. Tucker, 87 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the appeal as a petition invoking the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction where the trial court denied the mandamus petition upon finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any liberty interest to challenge his disciplinary report).

DENIED on the merits.

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 1289, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14751, 2016 WL 5818547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-jones-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack