Davis v. Warden et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 petition; dismissing case; and giving directions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/6/2014. (DD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DALE A. DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-920-J-32JRK

WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, a prisoner of the Florida penal system, initiated this action by filing a pro
se untitled pleading, which he describes as a mandamus action (Doc. #1) (hereinafter
Petition). The Petition is not a model of clarity and appears to raise numerous unrelated
issues, including allegations regarding Petitioner's state court conviction and the following
claims concerning the conditions of his confinement: (1) unnamed inmates have falsely
informed prison officials that Petitioner molested "a white woman," Petition at 2; (2)
"gangbanger[s] have lie[d]," id. at 3, causing Petitioner to lose property; (3) Petitioner is
being denied adequate medical care; (4) Petitioner has been subjected to "wanton used [sic]
of force," id.; (5) Petitioner has been charged with infractions in nine prison disciplinary
reports; (6) other inmates have sexually harassed Petitioner; (7) Petitioner is in fear of his
life "after being jump [sic] on twice," id. at 7, by unnamed security employees; and (8)
Petitioner is being denied his medically prescribed diet. Petitioner requests the Court to find
that his rights have been violated and also seeks to be transferred to a medical institution.

Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief.
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.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 998
(1990); District Lodge No. 166. v. TWA Servs. Inc., 731 F.2d 711, 717 (11th Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985) (quoting Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767, 773 (5th Cir.
1969)).
2

Here, Petitioner has not met his burden. He has not shown that he is entitled to this
drastic remedy. In fact, Petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy in that he may file
civil rights cases in this Court to address any allegedly unconstitutional conditions of his
confinement.1
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 shall enter judgment dismissing this action without prejudice and

close this case.
4.

The Clerk shall send a "Civil Rights Complaint Form," an "Affidavit of

Indigency" form, and a "Prisoner Consent Form and Financial Certificate" to Petitioner. If
Petitioner elects to initiate a civil rights action in this Court, he may complete and submit
these forms. Petitioner should not place this case number on the forms. The Clerk will
assign a separate case number. If Petitioner elects to initiate such an action, he shall either
file a fully completed "Prisoner Consent Form and Financial Certificate" and "Affidavit of
Indigency" (if he desires to proceed as a pauper) or pay the $400.00 filing fee (if he does not
desire to proceed as a pauper).

1

Only related claims may be raised in a single action. Unrelated claims must be filed in
separate civil rights cases.
3

5.

Because Petitioner asserts that he is in fear of his life, the Clerk shall send, via

facsimile or email, a copy of the Petition and this Order to the Inspector General for the
Florida Department of Corrections for whatever action may be deemed appropriate.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 6th day of August, 2014.

ps 8/4
c:
Dale A. Davis

4