Guess v. Barton, 91-2674
| Decision Date | 05 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2674,91-2674 |
| Citation | 599 So.2d 770 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D1427 Phillip E. GUESS, Jr., Appellant, v. Tom BARTON, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip E. Guess, Jr., appellant, pro se.
No appearance by the State.
Guess has appealed an order summarily denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The focus of the habeas petition in the instant case is the appellant's treatment in prison. He alleges, inter alia, that he has been abused by prison officials; kept on "c/m" confinement (close management) continuously ("I have spent virtually two and a half years in solitary confinement"); unjustly denied conveniences and privileges such as daily showers, exercise, TV, books, family visits; denied medical and dental care; and illegally denied gain time. The appellant's petition also alleges that he believes he is in danger and has been denied protection, and that he has attempted to file grievances, but his "grievance attempts were then [sic] retaliated."
In the instant case, the summary denial of appellant's petition for habeas corpus was based on the trial court's finding that "the petition does not on its face show a cause of action upon which relief may be granted."
For purposes of appellate review, we must assume that the allegations of the appellant's habeas petition are true. See Van Poyck v. Dugger, 579 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). Recently, in Roy v. Dugger, 592 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), where a prison inmate petitioned for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the prison's use of "close management" confinement was cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process and equal protection, this court reversed the summary denial of the lower court on the grounds that if the inmate's allegations were true, they could establish that the department had failed to comply with due process requirements.
We reverse the summary denial of the petition herein and remand for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. Jones
...v. Dep't of Corrections, 721 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ; Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ; Guess v. Barton, 599 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ; Roy v. Dugger, 592 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ; Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) ; see also Holl......
-
Kendrick v. McNeil, 1D08-1296.
...v. Dep't of Corrections, 721 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Guess v. Barton, 599 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thompson v. Dugger, 509 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Holland v......
-
Moore v. Dugger, 91-2615
...standing in the stopped-up toilet, and no lights. While these allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action, Guess v. Barton, 599 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roy v. Dugger, 592 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Van Poyck v. Dugger, 579 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Rahming v. Big......
-
Taylor v. Perrin
...upon which relief may be granted." In our review, we must assume the allegations of the habeas petition are true. See Guess v. Barton, 599 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In this case the habeas petition alleges that administrative remedies have been exhausted and claims due process and doub......