Opinion · District Court of Appeal of Florida
Munn v. Florida Parole Commission
2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1353
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Date
- 2002-02-12
- Topic
- general
holding that where the trial court has issued a recent order to show cause, mandamus relief was not warranted | holding that where the trial court has issued a recent order to show cause on a pending pleading, mandamus relief is not warranted | holding that where the trial court has recently taken action on a pending pleading, mandamus relief was not warranted | holding that where the trial court has recently taken action, mandamus relief was not warranted | holding that where the trial court has recently taken action, mandamus relief was not warranted | holding that where the trial court has recently taken action, mandamus relief was not warranted | holding that where the trial court has recently taken action on a pending pleading, mandamus relief was not warranted | holding that where the trial court has issued a recent order to show cause on a pending pleading, mandamus relief is not warranted | holding that where the trial court has issued a recent order to show cause, mandamus relief was not warranted
Citator
- Cited by
- 141 opinions
Thomas A. MUNN, Petitioner,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 1D01-3753.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
February 12, 2002.Thomas A. Munn, pro se, petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Robert R. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Thomas A. Munn petitions this court for mandamus relief in the form of an order directing the circuit court to rule on a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending in that forum. In light of the circuit court's recent issuance of an order to show cause why the petition pending below should not be granted, we conclude that the granting of mandamus relief is not warranted.[1] We do, however, encourage the circuit court to promptly rule on the merits of the claim before it.
KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
NOTES
[1] Munn's request that we permit the amendment of this proceeding to undertake certiorari review of the circuit court's order to show cause is denied based on our conclusion that the prerequisites for certiorari review are not present. See generally, Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987).