Smith v. Hernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. Hernandez

20 So. 3d 905, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14076, 2009 WL 3013790

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 2009

Docket2D08-3841

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 So. 3d 905 (Smith v. Hernandez) 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

Smith v. Hernandez, 20 So. 3d 905, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14076, 2009 WL 3013790 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*906 SILBERMAN, Judge.

Glenn Smith is a state prisoner who is serving a life sentence at Martin Correctional Institution for sexual battery upon a victim under twelve years old. Jennifer Hernandez is the public records custodian for Moore Haven Correctional Facility. Smith filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Hernandez to comply with Smith’s request to view the personnel file of a Moore Haven employee who Smith contends was terminated in 2000 “for violating agency policy.” The circuit court denied Smith’s petition, finding that the information sought was either exempt under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2007), as identifying information of active or former corrections officers, or was subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3). The court concluded that Smith did not establish a basis for mandamus relief. The court also entered an order finding Smith to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 68.093, Florida Statutes (2007), and prohibiting him from commencing pro se actions without leave of court. The court noted that Smith has filed over 100 cases in the past five years in Florida and federal courts and has already been declared a vexatious litigant in another county as set forth in Smith v. Fisher, 965 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

On appeal, Smith challenges the propriety of the denial of his records request and the determination that he is a vexatious litigant. Smith also raises constitutional challenges to sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). We find no error in the court’s denial of Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus. Further, we find no constitutional infirmity in sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that Smith is a vexatious litigant and that the court did not infringe on his constitutional rights in so finding.

Affirmed.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

*906 SILBERMAN, Judge.

Glenn Smith is a state prisoner who is serving a life sentence at Martin Correctional Institution for sexual battery upon a victim under twelve years old. Jennifer Hernandez is the public records custodian for Moore Haven Correctional Facility. Smith filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Hernandez to comply with Smith’s request to view the personnel file of a Moore Haven employee who Smith contends was terminated in 2000 “for violating agency policy.” The circuit court denied Smith’s petition, finding that the information sought was either exempt under section 119.071, Florida Statutes (2007), as identifying information of active or former corrections officers, or was subject to discretionary disclosure under section 945.10(3). The court concluded that Smith did not establish a basis for mandamus relief. The court also entered an order finding Smith to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 68.093, Florida Statutes (2007), and prohibiting him from commencing pro se actions without leave of court. The court noted that Smith has filed over 100 cases in the past five years in Florida and federal courts and has already been declared a vexatious litigant in another county as set forth in Smith v. Fisher, 965 So.2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

On appeal, Smith challenges the propriety of the denial of his records request and the determination that he is a vexatious litigant. Smith also raises constitutional challenges to sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). We find no error in the court’s denial of Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus. Further, we find no constitutional infirmity in sections 945.10(3) and 68.093(4). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the record fully supports the trial court’s finding that Smith is a vexatious litigant and that the court did not infringe on his constitutional rights in so finding.

Affirmed.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 So. 3d 905, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14076, 2009 WL 3013790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hernandez-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack