Hall v. Wainwright, BJ-232
| Decision Date | 12 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BJ-232,BJ-232 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2619,498 So.2d 670 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2619 Jack Ray HALL, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections; James T. Wainwright, Superintendent, Lawtey Correctional Institution; the State of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack Ray Hall, pro se.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Kurt Barch and Elizabeth L. Booth, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant appeals the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm.
Appellant alleged different facts in his petition for writ of mandamus than he did in his grievance petition filed with the Department of Corrections. In the grievance petition, he alleged that he was entitled to additional gain time because (1) none of the officers complained about the quality of his work; (2) he never received a progress report; (3) no disciplinary actions were taken against him; and (4) had the officers known that a "satisfactory" rating would have prevented him from being awarded the gain time, they would have rated him differently. In his petition for writ of mandamus, he alleged that he was entitled to additional gain time because (1) David Osteen and Sergeant Bell told him he would receive day-for-day work gain time; (2) none of the officers complained about the quality of his work; (3) he received a progress report informing him that he was receiving day-for-day work gain time and that his work was rated outstanding; (4) his work performance was rated as satisfactory or above on all reports; and (5) he had no disciplinary reports during the interim. Since the above facts numbered (1), (3), and (4) were not alleged in the grievance petition, appellant has not exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to the provisions of rule 33-3.07, Florida Administrative Code. Curry v. Wainwright, 422 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
We disagree with the state's contention that since the award of gain time is discretionary, a petition for writ of mandamus is an improper remedy. While there is no automatic right to receive day-for-day work gain time, Dickinson v. Wainwright, 416 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the procedures for awarding the gain time must be applied uniformly, Pettway v. Wainwright, 450 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This court has also held that since its jurisdiction to entertain direct appeals by prisoners from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Dugger, 88-3956
...seek to remedy an adverse decision by filing a petition for an extraordinary writ in the circuit court. See Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 670 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); Hansen, 436 So.2d at 349-50. In Baranko v. Wainwright, 448 So.2d 1067 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984), upon which Lee relies, the basi......
-
Stovall v. Cooper, 2D02-4606.
...all administrative channels must seek their remedy in circuit court by way of a petition for an extraordinary writ. Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). If a prisoner's sentence would have expired had the Department properly awarded gain time, habeas corpus is the proper r......
-
Turner v. Singletary
...339 So.2d 694 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977). Nevertheless, as this court acknowledged in Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), a petition for writ of mandamus may, in certain instances, be a proper remedy for review of DOC's denial of gain time. ......
-
Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Com'n
...of mandamus for review of PPRDs. Griffith, 485 So.2d at 820. See also Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So.2d 669 (Fla.1985); Hall v. Wainwright, 498 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Thomas v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 436 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hansen v. Florida Parole and Pro......