Donald Waters v. Dept. of Corrections , 144 So. 3d 609 ( 2014 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
DONALD WATERS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D13-3310
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed August 1, 2014.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
John C. Cooper, Judge.
Donald Waters, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel A. Johnson, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Despite the assertion and presentation of evidence that appellant’s formal
grievance appeal was timely turned over to prison officials for mailing pursuant to
the “prison mailbox rule” and Gonzalez v. State, 604 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA
1992), the circuit court dismissed his petition for writ of mandamus to compel the
Department of Corrections (Department) to consider his grievance appeal on the
merits. Finding that appellant failed to take advantage of an optional internal
logging/tracking process and instead sent his grievance appeal through the U.S.
mail which was receipted at the central office in Tallahassee after the deadline, the
circuit court concluded appellant had “no clear legal right” to the issuance of a
writ. See Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1990). For the same reasons
expressed in Waters v. Dept. of Corrections, -- So. 3d -- (Fla. 1st DCA, Opinion
filed this date), including the continued viability of Gonzalez, and because the
Department failed to provide any evidence to rebut appellant’s assertion of timely
mailing, we reverse the order dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus
and remand for entry of the writ.
However, appellant also challenges the circuit court’s refusal to appoint
counsel, grant an injunction against retaliation, or otherwise address constitutional
arguments raised in the petition, and the court’s adoption of the Department’s draft
order. Other than as discussed above, we find no error in the circuit court’s actions,
agree that mandamus is not the proper remedy to address constitutional issues, and
otherwise affirm the circuit court’s orders.
REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
WOLF, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
2