COLE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Miscellaneous Relief filed by LORENZO COLE, : It is recommended that the petition for writ of mandamus, Doc. 1, be DENIED and this case DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge ALLAN KORNBLUM on 5/12/06. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 6/9/2006(deb, Gainesville)

Download PDF
COLE v. STATE OF FLORIDA Doc. 5 Case 1:06-cv-00095-MP-AK Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION LORENZO COLE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ___________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, Petition for Writ of Mandamus. By separate order, the Court has, in the interest of expediting this matter, granted Petitioner permission to proceed IFP. In this mandamus petition, Petitioner asks the Court to order the Florida Supreme Court to "respond to his amended petition for writ of mandamus to compel the First District Court of Appeal to utilize its jurisdiction." Id. The amended petition for writ of mandamus has been pending before the supreme court since November 16, 2005. Id. Federal courts have "no general power to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought...." Russell v. Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1973).1 In this case, Petitioner has requested only that this Court direct CASE NO. 1:06-cv-95-MMP-AK The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit which were handed down before the close of business on September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00095-MP-AK Document 5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 the Florida Supreme Court to act on the amended petition pending before that tribunal and has not alleged anything that would take this case outside of the general prohibition against mandamus set forth in Russell. Further, Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief of mandamus which may be granted only when there is no other adequate means available to remedy a clear usurpation of power or abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1004 (11th Cir. 1997). In this Court's view, this would require showing, for example, that the failure of the state supreme court to rule on his amended petition has unconstitutionally prevented Petitioner from timely pursuing his state post-conviction remedies or his federal habeas corpus remedies and seeking relief from an allegedly unlawful conviction or sentence in other venues. Instant Petitioner has not made this requisite showing. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of mandamus, Doc. 1, be DENIED and this case DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IN CHAMBERS this 12th day of May, 2006. s/ A. KORNBLUM ALLAN KORNBLUM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case No: 1:06-cv-0095-MMP-AK

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?