Opinion
Case No. SC06-1398.
September 25, 2006.
Lower Tribunal No. 2D05-2922.
To the extent the Petitioner is seeking prohibition relief, the petition for writ of prohibition is hereby denied. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1977) (holding that prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction and may be invoked only in emergency cases to forestall an impending present injury where the person seeking the writ has no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy).
To the extent the Petitioner is seeking to invoke this Court's all writs jurisdiction, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541, 543-44 (Fla. 2005) (stating that "[i]n the present cases . . . neither petitioner . . . cites an independent basis that would allow the Court to exercise its all writs authority, and no such basis is apparent on the face of the petitions"); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980) (stating that "all writs provision of [article V,] section 3(b)(7) [of the Florida Constitution] does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on this Court, and this Court's all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction as petitioner is hereby seeking to use it").
To the extent the Petitioner is seeking mandamus relief, the petition is denied because he has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (holding that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show that he has a clear legal right to performance of the requested act, that the respondent has an indisputable legal duty to perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists).
The request for oral argument and "Emergency Motion for Constitutional Stay" are hereby denied.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.