King v. State Of Florida

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 petition; dismissing case; and giving directions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 4/15/2014. (DD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DANIEL ALEXANDER KING,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-411-J-32JBT

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, a prisoner of the Florida penal system, initiated this action by filing a pro
se Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. #1) (hereinafter Petition). Petitioner requests this
Court to enter an order compelling the Florida Department of Corrections to transfer him to
an institution that is closer to where his family lives.
Petitioner is not entitled to the mandamus relief that he seeks.
Mandamus, which is an extreme form of equitable relief, "is a
writ designed to require an official to perform an act required by
law." See Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 904 F.2d 585, 587
(11th Cir. 1990). Although the writ of mandamus was abolished
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b), federal courts "may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000); see also Armstrong v. Martin Marietta
Corp., 138 F.3d 1374, 1385 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc)
(recognizing the writ of mandamus may issue to correct a clear
abuse of discretion or the failure to carry out a ministerial task).
Pursuant to their powers under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, federal courts
continue to grant equitable relief, which sometimes are referred
to as "writs of mandamus." See generally Vacheron &
Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc. v. Benrus Watch Co., 260

F.2d 637, 640 (2d Cir. 1958) (noting courts continue to issue
orders that "for brevity, we may still speak of as a mandamus.")
Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2002).
"[T]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary
situations[.]" In re Bellsouth Corp., 334 F.3d 941, 953 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1981)); see also Mallard v. United States Dist. Court
for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). To be entitled to mandamus,
Petitioner must demonstrate the following: (1) a clear right to the relief he requests; (2) a
clear, non-discretionary duty in the Respondent to perform the action sought; and, (3) the
absence of an adequate alternative remedy. Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309; Stephens v. Dept.
of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1576 (11th Cir. 1990).
Here, Petitioner has not met his burden. He has not shown that he is entitled to this
drastic remedy.
[I]t is well established that prisoners have no right to be
incarcerated in a particular institution with particular rules,
regulations and privileges. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96
S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427
U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976); Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813
(1983) (holding that transferring a prisoner from a Hawaii state
prison to a California prison did not implicate a liberty interest
protected by the Due Process Clause). As long as the
conditions or degree of confinement to which a prisoner is
subjected are within the sentence imposed upon him and are not
otherwise violative of the Constitution, prison officials have broad
discretion to order the transfer of inmates. Montayne, 427 U.S.
at 242, 96 S.Ct. at 2547. Thus, . . . the denial of an inmate's
request to transfer his "place of confinement . . . so that he might
be incarcerated in close proximity to residence of his wife and
children" similarly fails to raise a cognizable federal claim.

2

Moore v. A United States Atty. Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th
Cir. 1973). . . .
Johnson v. McNeil, No. 5:08cv286/RS-EMT, 2009 WL 2589109, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 19,
2009). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
Therefore, it is now
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Petition (Doc. #1) is DENIED.

2.

This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

3.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without

prejudice and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 15th day of April, 2014.

ps 4/11
c:
Daniel Alexander King

3