STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FRANKLIN GALE, LARRY MANNING, ) ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. ) COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, ) HARRY F. McCRAY, and )
WESLEY L. BRITTON, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-5242RU
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
Notice was provided and on November 2, 1990, at Baker Correctional Institution, Olustee, Florida, a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for the conduct of the hearing is set forth in Sections 120.54 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Carl B. Cribbs, #036458
Qualified Representative
Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
For Respondent: Arthur Wiedinger, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues to be considered are those associated with a petition to determine the invalidity of actions taken by the State of Florida, Department of Corrections, creating and implementing a policy associated with custody criteria for inmates. This policy is said to be a rule by definition set forth in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes. Further, it is alleged that the policy has not undergone the rigors of rule enactment envisioned by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Thus, it is procedurally incorrect. Finally, the allegation is made that the new policy contravened an existing rule on the subject. Based upon these circumstances, Petitioners seek a declaration that the policy is a rule by definition, that necessary procedural steps to enact the policy as a rule have not been pursued, that the policy contravened an existing rule, and that the policy was without force and effect during its existence.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 6, 1990, a petition to determine the invalidity of the aforementioned policy was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
On August 24, 1990, the case was assigned to the present Hearing Officer for conduct of a formal hearing. The hearing was noticed for September 21, 1990. A motion was made by all parties seeking continuance of the hearing. That motion was granted and the case was reset for hearing on November 2, 1990, and conducted on that date.
By order of September 11, 1990, Carl B. Cribbs was accepted as the qualified representative to represent the interests of the Petitioners in this cause.
On September 17, 1990, an order was entered denying Respondent's motion to dismiss. That motion dates from August 31, 1990.
On October 29, 1990, a telephone conference was held to consider Respondent's motion suggesting mootness and Petitioners' motion for order to withdraw the notice of proposed rule making. The latter motion spoke to the October 12, 1990 publication of notice amending existing Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. The existing rule is the rule commented on in the statement of issues. The essence of the motion for order to withdraw the notice of proposed rulemaking was to the effect that Respondent was unable to amend the existing rule until the present challenge to the policy/unpromulgated rule in existence at a time common to the existing rule had been disposed of through the present proceedings.
Neither the Respondent's motion on suggestion of mootness nor Petitioners' motion for order to withdraw the notice of proposed rulemaking were availing.
An order was entered on October 30, 1990, denying both motions.
At the commencement of the hearing, the representative for Petitioners again broached the subject about the Respondent's ability to proceed to rule amendment associated with Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, given the pendency of the challenge to the policy/unpromulgated rule. As with the unreported remarks by the Hearing Officer in the October 29, 1990 telephone conference dealing with Petitioners' motion for order to withdraw notice of proposed rulemaking, an explanation of the Hearing Officer's reasoning for disallowing any collateral attack on the attempt by Respondent to amend its rule was stated. The latter explanation was preserved in that the hearing was reported and a transcript prepared. In addition, Petitioners' representative was reminded that the apparent deadline for challenging the proposed amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, dating from October 12, 1990, under authority of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, expired at 5:00 p.m., November 2, 1990.
As stated, a transcript was prepared. Through courtesy extended by counsel for Respondent, Petitioners were provided with a copy of that transcript to assist in the preparation of a proposed final order. This opportunity was verified in correspondence of December 18, 1990, addressed to the Hearing Officer with a copy to Petitioners' representative. The Respondent's proposed final order was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1990. It was contemplated that beyond December 18, 1990, the Petitioners would receive the transcript and within ten days from receipt file a proposed final order. The filing of a proposed final order by Petitioners occurred on
January 7, 1991, with an accompanying letter from the representative for Petitioners explaining the delay. The delay was occasioned by an intervening holiday that caused the law library at the Baker Correctional Institution to be closed and unavailable to Petitioners' representative in preparing his submission. Both proposed final orders are accepted. 1/ The proposed final orders together with exhibits and transcript have been reviewed in preparing the final order. The proposed fact finding set forth in the proposed final orders is commented on in an appendix to the final order.
At the hearing, A.F. Cook, Waymond Ponds, Franklin Gale, Larry Manning, Leonard B. Coleman, Harry F. McCray, Wesley L. Britton, Kenneth Osborn, and John Dampier testified. One joint exhibit was admitted. Petitioners' exhibits 1-7 were admitted. Respondent's exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners are inmates in Respondent's custody. They had been classified concerning their level of custody in accordance with Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed prior to the adoption of an emergency rule on August 1, 1990. That emergency rule amended the existing Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. The emergency rule is referred to as 33ER90-4. Publication of the emergency rule was made in Volume 16, No. 32, August 10, 1990, Florida Administrative Weekly. On October 12, 1990, in Volume 16, No. 41, Florida Administrative Weekly, notice was published relating to a permanent amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. As described in the Statement of Purpose and Effect found within the October 12, 1990 Proposed Amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, the proposed amendment revised the Respondent's guidelines regarding custody levels for specified offenses. It upgraded the custody levels for inmates having committed certain described offenses and required mandatory close custody for certain violent offenders. The proposed changes were substantially the same as those set forth in the emergency rule. Both the emergency rule and the proposed amendment announced criteria for considering an inmate's custody status. The emergency rule and proposed amendment limited the discretion in determining an inmate's classification, community placement and work release opportunities for inmates.
The emergency rule and proposed amendment to the preexisting Rule 33- 6.009, Florida Administrative Code, were preceded effective July 3, 1990, by a change in policy associated with establishment of inmate classification and custody status. This occurred on July 3, 1990. The theory behind that arrangement is announced in Petitioners' composite Exhibit 1. This exhibit is constituted of an order of the Governor which speaks to limitations on work release eligibility in the Florida Prison System. It is dated July 5, 1990. The exhibit also contains restricted custody criteria and a memorandum of July 5, 1990, from A.F. Cook, Assistant Superintendent For Programs at the Baker Correction Institution. This institution is the location where the Petitioners were confined at all relevant times, to include a nearby work camp.
The Governor's policy statement and attendant restricted custody criteria were universally applied to the prison population in Florida. This policy statement and commentary on custody criteria contravene the approaches found within Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, which predated the emergency rule and October 12, 1990 proposed amendment to that preexisting rule. Compared to the preexisting rule the policy statement and associated placement criteria are more restrictive in their terms when commenting on the custody status for inmate categories. In particular, the exercise of the policy and associated custody criteria were solely responsible for changing the custody
status of the Petitioners in the following respects: Harry McCray went from minimum to close custody effective June 27, 1990; George Chestnut went from minimum to close custody effective July 5, 1990; Wesley Britton went from minimum to close custody effective July 4, 1990; Franklin Gale went from minimum to close custody effective June 27, 1990; Larry Manning went from minimum to close custody effective July 5, 1990; Bruce Coleman went from minimum to close custody effective July 5, 1990; and Robert Delana went from minimum to close custody effective July 4, 1990.
Certain adjustments to the initial policy statement and associated custody criteria were made on several occasions and were imposed upon Petitioners during dependency of the use of the policy and associated custody criteria; however, the basic concepts in the policy and custody criteria remained constant.
The design of the emergency rule and Proposed Amendment to Rule 33- 6.009, Florida Administrative Code, published on October 12, 1990, have differences when compared to the Governor's policy statement with its associated restricted custody criteria. Nonetheless, all of these changes to the preexisting Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, promote a more restrictive custody circumstance for Petitioners.
Petitioners had not been made aware of the pendency of the policy change which came about in early July, 1990 associated with the Governor's order on policy for limiting work release eligibility and the associated custody criteria. That policy and the custody criteria had not undergone the rigors of the rule enactment process that was later undertaken with the advent of the emergency rule and Proposed Amendment to Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, as published on October 12, 1990.
Neither were the three or four changes to the initial policy statement and custody criteria subjected to the rule enactment process, to include the possibility of the passage of an emergency rule.
In the hiatus between early July, 1990, when the Governor's policy and its associated custody criteria were being exercised through the inception of the emergency rule, Petitioners were substantially affected by this change.
Some of the Petitioners lost gain time. Petitioners' freedom of movement was diminished given the change in placement. Some of the Petitioners lost hours of employment because of the change in custody. Living conditions for Petitioners were less advantageous. The ability to assist family members through gainful employment was removed for one Petitioner causing hardship for his family. This change in custody had an adverse affect on the emotional state of Petitioners and family members. The change in custody status has undermined the feeling of self-worth for certain Petitioners and has made them feel that the trust which they had earned by commendable conduct has no significance in the final analysis.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Sections 120.54 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Petitioners have standing to challenge the Respondent's classification policy dating from early July, 1990 as a rule not duly promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and invalid in its implementation. See
Florida Department of Corrections v. Piccirillo, 474 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Florida Department of Corrections v. Adams, 458 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Moultrie v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 496 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); and Larry Hendrix, Appellant v. Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee, in the District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida, Case No. 90-2142, opinion filed January 18, 1991.
The policy on classification dating from early July, 1990 to include the July 5, 1990 Governor's order with attendant restricted custody criteria and the several changes to the custody criteria that were brought about constitute a rule by the definition set forth in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. This rule was not promulgated in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and is procedurally invalid. This unpromulgated rule contravened the existing rule on custody classification found at 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code. This unpromulgated rule is an invalid exercise of legislative authority by the failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. See Section 124.52(8)(a), Florida Statutes. In addition, the application of the unpromulgated rule has no force and effect.
See Board of Optometry v. Florida Society of Ophthalmology, 538 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) and Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Appellant v. Martin County Liquors, Inc., Appellee, Case No. 88-2902 and Martin County Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Martin County Liquors, Appellant v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Appellee, Case No. 89-2231, in the District Court of Appeal, First District State of Florida, opinion filed January 15, 1991. See also Artifical Kidney Center v. Dept. of Health, 493 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Petitioners have persisted in their claim that the pendency of the challenge to the unpromulgated rule would forestall the Respondent's opportunity to amend Rule 33-6.009, Florida Administrative Code, as contemplated by the Publication of Notice on October 12, 1990. Resolution of the present dispute is not a prerequisite to that amendatory process. An amendment to the existing rule may be promoted collaterally without regard for the outcome in the present case. As Petitioners were instructed, any attack on that amendment must have proceeded separately. Having considered the cases cited by Petitioners, they do not promote a contrary impression.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of January, 1991.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January 1991.
ENDNOTE
1/ It was intended that notification be given to the parties concerning the filing of the transcript with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and that the opportunity for submission of proposed final orders would begin to run with that filing. Being uncertain of the court reporter's response to the request to notify, the time for submission of those proposed final orders was extended as explained.
APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER
The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties.
Petitioners' Facts
Paragraph 1 in its first two sentences does not constitute fact finding.
The latter sentence is subordinate to facts found.
The middle sentence within Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found. The latter sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found.
Paragraphs 9 through 41 are subordinate to facts found.
Respondent's Facts
Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of corrections as to dates for Petitioners McCray and Gale as to the change of their custody and the nature of that change as it relates to inmate Gale.
Paragraphs 5 through 9 are subordinate to facts found.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Carl B. Cribbs, #036458
Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Franklin Gale, #080490
Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Larry Manning, #049601
Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Robert A. Delana, #003167 Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Leonard B. Coleman, #093346 Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
George B. Chestnut, #065678 Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Harry F. McCray, #044051
Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Wesley L. Britton, #003299 Baker Correctional Institution Post Office Box 500
Olustee, Florida 32072
Louis A. Vargas, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Arthur Wiedinger, Esquire Linda B. Miles, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Richard Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee
120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
LARRY MANNING, FRANKLIN GALE, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. HARRY F. MCCRAY AND WESLEY L.
BRITTON, CASE NOS. 91-661, 91-663,
91-664, 91-665; 91-667
Appellants, CONSOLIDATED
DOAH CASE NO. 90-5242RU
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Appellee.
/ Opinion filed January 14, 1993.
Appeal from an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Carl B. Cribbs, Olustee, for Appellants.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ALLEN, J.
The appellants are prison inmates appealing an agency order entered in a proceeding upon a petition under section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, and section 120.56, Florida Statutes. These appeals were pending on July 1, 1992, when section 120.52(12)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), became effective. As amended by chapter 92-166, section 9, Laws of Florida, this enactment no longer
authorizes prisoners to obtain or participate in section 120.54(4) or section
120.56 proceedings, or to seek judicial review under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, with regard to such agency action. These appeals no longer being authorized by law, and no reason having been shown why the amendment to section 120.52(12)(d) should not apply, these appeals are dismissed. See Endress v. Florida Department of Corrections, No. 91-4145 (Fla. 1st DCA January 14, 1993); Rothermel v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm'n, 441 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
WIGGINTON and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.
MANDATE
From
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT
To the Honorable Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer
WHEREAS, in that certain cause filed in this Court styled: Division of Administrative Hearings
FRANKLIN GALE, LARRY MANNING, ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, HARRY F. MCCRAY and
WESLEY L. BRITTON,
v. Case No. 91-661
STATE OF FLORIDA, Your Case No. 90-5242RU DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The attached opinion was rendered on January 14, 1993.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of this Court and the laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS the Honorable James E. Joanos
Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District and the Seal of said court at Tallahassee, the Capitol, on this 17th day of February, 1993.
Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
To the Honorable Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer
WHEREAS, in that certain cause filed in this Court styled: Division of Administrative Hearings
FRANKLIN GALE, LARRY MANNING, ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, HARRY F. MCCRAY and
WESLEY L. BRITTON,
v. Case No. 91-663
STATE OF FLORIDA, Your Case No. 90-5242RU DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The attached opinion was rendered on January 14, 1993.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of this Court and the laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS the Honorable James E. Joanos
Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District and the Seal of said court at Tallahassee, the Capitol, on this 17th day of February, 1993.
Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
To the Honorable Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer
WHEREAS, in that certain cause filed in this Court styled: Division of Administrative Hearings
FRANKLIN GALE, LARRY MANNING, ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, HARRY F. MCCRAY and
WESLEY L. BRITTON,
v. Case No. 91-664
STATE OF FLORIDA, Your Case No. 90-5242RU DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The attached opinion was rendered on January 14, 1993.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of this Court and the laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS the Honorable James E. Joanos
Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District and the Seal of said court at Tallahassee, the Capitol, on this 17th day of February, 1993.
Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
To the Honorable Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer
WHEREAS, in that certain cause filed in this Court styled: Division of Administrative Hearings
FRANKLIN GALE, LARRY MANNING, ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, HARRY F. MCCRAY and
WESLEY L. BRITTON,
v. Case No. 91-665
STATE OF FLORIDA, Your Case No. 90-5242RU DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The attached opinion was rendered on January 14, 1993.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of this Court and the laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS the Honorable James E. Joanos
Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District and the Seal of said court at Tallahassee, the Capitol, on this 17th day of February, 1993.
Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
To the Honorable Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer
WHEREAS, in that certain cause filed in this Court styled: Division of Administrative Hearings
FRANKLIN GALE, LARRY MANNING, ROBERT A. DELANA, LEONARD B. COLEMAN, GEORGE B. CHESTNUT, HARRY F. MCCRAY and
WESLEY L. BRITTON,
v. Case No. 91-667
STATE OF FLORIDA, Your Case No. 90-5242RU DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The attached opinion was rendered on January 14, 1993.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of this Court and the laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS the Honorable James E. Joanos
Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District and the Seal of said court at Tallahassee, the Capitol, on this 17th day of February, 1993.
Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 15, 1993 | First DCA Opinion filed. |
| Jul. 03, 1991 | Motion for extension of time to serve answer brief(DOC moved for an extension of time)2 copies filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1991 | ORDER(First DCA Dismissing Harry McCray's Appeal)filed. |
| Jun. 18, 1991 | Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out. |
| May 28, 1991 | Order(DCA order-Extension of time to serve initial brief Granted) filed. |
| May 02, 1991 | Order(DCA consolidating cases) sent out. |
| Apr. 19, 1991 | Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Apr. 12, 1991 | Further Order Certifying Indigency(4) sent out. |
| Mar. 11, 1991 | Certificate of Indigency sent out. |
| Mar. 11, 1991 | Certificate of Notice of Administrative Cross Appeal sent out. |
| Mar. 11, 1991 | Notice of Administrative Cross Appeal filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1991 | Notice of Administrative Cross Appeal filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1991 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 1-91-665. |
| Mar. 05, 1991 | Order Certifying Indigency sent out. |
| Mar. 05, 1991 | Certificate of Notice of Administrative Appeal sent out. |
| Mar. 05, 1991 | Certificate of Notice of Administrative Appeal(4) sent out. |
| Mar. 05, 1991 | Order Certifying Indigency sent out. |
| Mar. 04, 1991 | Motion to proceed in Forma Pauperis and Affidavit of Insolvency (4) filed. |
| Mar. 01, 1991 | Certificate of Notice of Appeal sent out. |
| Feb. 28, 1991 | Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Affidavit of Insolvency filed. |
| Feb. 28, 1991 | Notice of Appeal filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1991 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held 11/2/90. |
| Jan. 07, 1991 | Letter to CCA from Carl B. Cribb (re: PPF) filed. |
| Jan. 07, 1991 | Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order filed. (From Carl B. Cribbs) |
| Dec. 19, 1990 | Letter to CCA from A. R. Wiedinger, Jr. (re: Transcript & Proposed Final Order) filed. |
| Dec. 17, 1990 | (respondent) Proposed Order filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1990 | Transcript filed. |
| Nov. 16, 1990 | Letter to CCA from Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. (re: ltr from Mr. Cribbs)& attachment filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1990 | Letter to CCA from Carl B. Cribbs (re: Counsel for Respondent has elected to have a Transcript of the final hearing) filed. |
| Nov. 07, 1990 | Letter to CCA from Arthur R. Wiedinger w/Respondent's Exhibit-2 filed. |
| Nov. 07, 1990 | Letter to CCA from Carl B. Cribbs (re: Transcript) filed. |
| Nov. 07, 1990 | Letter to CCA from Arthur R. Wiedinger (re: Transcript) filed. |
| Oct. 31, 1990 | (Petitioners) Motion for Issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjuciendum filed. (From Carl B. Cribbs) |
| Oct. 30, 1990 | Order (Motion for suggestion of mootness is DENIED and the Motion forOrder to Withdraw Notice of Proposed Rule Making is DENIED) sent out. |
| Oct. 29, 1990 | Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Affidavit of Insolvency & cover ltr filed. (From Carl Cribbs) |
| Oct. 25, 1990 | Motion For Order to Withdraw Notice of Proposed Rulemaking & attachment; Response to Suggestion of Mootness filed. (From Carl G. Cribbs) |
| Oct. 18, 1990 | (Petiitoners) Request for Issuance of Subpoenas; Motion For Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis For Purpose of Service of Subpoenas; (6) Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Affidavit of Insolvency filed. (From Carl B. Cribbs) |
| Oct. 16, 1990 | (Respondent) Suggestion of Mootness filed. (From Arthur R. Wiedinger) |
| Oct. 01, 1990 | (Respondent) Notice of Partial Compliance With Request For Productionand Objections filed. (from Arthur Wiedinger) |
| Sep. 17, 1990 | Order (hearing reset for 11/2/90; 9:30am; Olustee) sent out. |
| Sep. 17, 1990 | Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Sep. 11, 1990 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. (From Arthur Wiedinger) |
| Sep. 11, 1990 | Order (Motion to represent petitioner granted) sent out. |
| Sep. 07, 1990 | (Petitioners) Motion to Expedite Production of Documents, Things/Discovery w/exhibit-A & Motion for Author8ization to Appear As Qualified Representative filed. (From Franklin Gale et al) |
| Sep. 04, 1990 | (Respondent) Motion to Dismiss filed. (From Arthur Wiedinger) |
| Sep. 04, 1990 | (Respondent) Motion to Dismiss filed. (From Arthur Wiedinger) |
| Aug. 29, 1990 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Sept. 21, 1990: 9:30 am: Olustee) |
| Aug. 24, 1990 | Order of Assignment sent out. |
| Aug. 23, 1990 | Ltr. to C. Webb & L. Cloud sent out. |
| Aug. 06, 1990 | Petition to Determine Invalidity of a Proposed/Existing Rule filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 15, 1993 | Opinion | |
| Jan. 31, 1991 | DOAH Final Order | Challenge to a policy statement as a rule unpromulgated and contrary to enabiling statute and existing rule. (Prisoners) Challenge had merit. |
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, 90-005242RU (1990)
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, 90-005242RU (1990)
SANTA ROSA COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, 90-005242RU (1990)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, 90-005242RU (1990)
ALACHUA COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, 90-005242RU (1990)
