Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n
Decision Date | 18 October 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 1D98-1931.,1D98-1931. |
Citation | 768 So.2d 1257 |
Parties | Lawrence Scott ANDREWS, Appellant, v. The FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION and The Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Middleton of Middleton & Prugh, P.A., Melrose, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Amelia L. Beisner, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
Lawrence Scott Andrews appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the Florida Parole Commission (Commission) and the Department of Corrections (DOC) for false imprisonment and for negligent discharge of official duties. The trial court dismissed the complaint concluding both that sovereign immunity barred recovery, and that Andrews had been taken into custody and incarcerated by DOC under a facially valid warrant. We conclude that the actions of the Commission were quasi-judicial in nature and entitled to protection under the doctrine of judicial immunity. We further conclude that no action for false imprisonment can be maintained against DOC because, as shown by the allegations of the complaint itself, Andrews had been taken into custody and incarcerated by DOC based upon a presumptively valid warrant and commitment order issued by the Commission. We therefore affirm the order and judgment of dismissal; however, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court a question of great public importance concerning whether the Commission and DOC can be held liable for false imprisonment under circumstances such as were presented in this case.
Andrews' complaint for money damages based on his alleged wrongful imprisonment, alleged, in part, as follows:
DOC and the Commission moved to dismiss arguing that sovereign immunity shielded them from liability. The Commission also claimed that its actions were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.
Id. at 54; see also Parole Comm'n v. Cooper, 701 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1997)
().
Andrews' complaint alleged, consistent with the Westlund interpretation of section 947.1405 as applied to the facts here, that his last lawful date of conditional release supervision was September 12, 1994. As explained in Westlund, the gain time applied to reduce the period of incarceration under pre-October 1, 1988 offenses cannot be used in calculating the period of time an inmate is subject to conditional release supervision. See Westlund, 637 So.2d at 54
. Notwithstanding this limitation on the Commission's authority to exercise supervision, the Commission at the time of Andrews' initial release established December 25, 1995 as the termination date for his conditional release supervision. Thereafter, on two occasions subsequent to September 12, 1994, the Commission issued warrants for Andrews' arrest based upon alleged violations of the terms his conditional release.1 DOC took custody of Andrews pursuant to these warrants.
This appeal followed.
We review the order granting the motion to dismiss de novo. See Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
(). In ruling on the motion, the trial court had to accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint and limit its consideration of factual matters to the four corners of the complaint. See Brewer v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, 720 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Varnes v. Dawkins, 624 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). A reviewing court operates under the same constraints. See Rittman, 727 So.2d at 393; McKinney-Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So.2d 393, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
As a preliminary matter, we dispose of those allegations of the complaint seeking to impose liability upon both the Commission and DOC based upon their alleged breach of duties placed upon them by statute. It is clear to us that the statutes invoked, specifically, sections 944.2753 and 947.1405,4 are simply a part of an overall statutory scheme whose sole purpose is the protection of the public through a system of apprehension, conviction and incarceration of criminal offenders. These statutory provisions, and other related provisions, create no duty on the part of the Commission or DOC for the benefit of any private person, and thus afford no basis for an action by any aggrieved individual for alleged negligence or errors in their application or enforcement. See Vann v. Department of Corrections, 662 So.2d 339, 340 (Fla.1995)
() (quoting Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla.1985)).
Appellant argues that even in the absence of a statutory duty, DOC and the Commission are liable for damages for the common law tort of false imprisonment. We hold that under the facts alleged there is no liability on the part of either party for false imprisonment.
Florida's highest court has clearly established that the doctrine of judicial immunity exists in Florida apart from the concept of sovereign immunity; that this type of immunity embraces persons who exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function; and that this immunity is unaffected by Florida's waiver of sovereign immunity. See Office of State Attorney, Fourth...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Gainesville v. STATE, DOT
...of law. On appeal of a judgment granting a motion to dismiss, the standard of review is de novo. See Andrews v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 768 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("The sufficiency of a complaint in a civil a......
-
Whittington v. Town of Surfside
...law, false arrest and false imprisonment/detention are "different labels for the same cause of action." Andrews v. Florida Parole Comm'n, 768 So.2d 1257, 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (false arrest and false imprisonment are "essentially the same tort"). As under federal law, the existence of pr......
-
Moss v. Mamalis, No. 94,379.
...authority more directly on point. However, the Florida Court of Appeals has addressed a similar issue. See Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n, 768 So.2d 1257 (Fla.Dist.App.2000). In Andrews, the Florida Department of Corrections had unlawfully arrested and incarcerated Andrews for violations c......
-
Witherow v. State Bd. of Parole Comm'Rs
...board are entitled to immunity for quasi-judicial acts such as granting, denying, or revoking parole); Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n, 768 So.2d 1257, 1262 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.2000) (concluding that the Florida parole commission "functions in a quasi-judicial capacity in carrying out its dut......
-
Physical torts
...function; and that this immunity is unaffected by Florida’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Andrews v. Florida Parole Commission , 768 So.2d 1257, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), rev. dismissed , 791 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2001). 6. Probable Cause: In malicious prosecution plaintiff must allege and prove......