Summary

Inmates at the Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 29, 1980, due to violent conditions at the prison, inadequate security measures, inadequate staff training, insufficient number of staff, overcrowded conditions, and physical plant deficiencies. They argued that these conditions deprived them of their basic constitutional rights.

The petitions were filed in Bradford County, Florida, where the prison is located. The respondents, however, maintained their principal headquarters in Leon County, Florida, and argued for the case to be dismissed or transferred to the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit. The central issue was whether the respondents were the initial “sword-wielders” – meaning whether the state’s actions were the direct cause of the alleged constitutional violations.

Jack Fine successfully argued that the case was properly filed in Bradford County because the inmates were seeking direct judicial protection from the alleged unlawful invasion of their constitutional rights in the county where these rights were being violated. The trial court agreed and denied the motion to dismiss or transfer venue, affirming that the suits were rightly instituted where the alleged wrongs occurred.

On February 13, 1981, we faced another interlocutory appeal concerning a peremptory writ of mandamus. The inmates contended that they were denied fundamental constitutional rights due to the same inadequate conditions. After a thorough evidentiary hearing, the court found probable cause for the issuance of the writ and appointed an Advisory Commission to recommend corrective actions. Despite the appellants’ responses, the judge ordered significant measures, including reducing the inmate population and seeking accreditation by the American Corrections Association, to address the emergency situation at the prison.

The Department of Corrections argued that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy and that the court’s order overstepped by mandating specific actions. However, Jack maintained that the inmates had a clear legal right to be free from victimization and that the Department had a legal duty to provide such protection under Florida Statute § 20.315, which outlines the goals and responsibilities of the Department of Corrections, including providing an environment conducive to rehabilitation and protecting inmates from harm.

The court affirmed our position, recognizing the emergency conditions and the Department’s inadequate response. The judge emphasized that the court’s actions were necessary to ensure constitutional compliance and protect the inmates’ rights.