Denial of access to the courts?

[AlexB18]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL - Civil/Admin/Constitutional rights

Some background... in FL, in order to seek judicial review/cert/an appeal of a final agency action, the order must be final (not interlocutory) and rendered with the clerk of the agency per definition of redition in the FL Rules of Appellate Procedure. There's solid case law that an order that does not meet these requirements for this scenario is non-appealable until it is final and rendered. There were no other procedures to appeal this order and the agency refused to reconsider the order in any way. Further, this order was given by someone that may not have authority to issue such an order. Because of the delay between the free-form order and a mandamus to compel an appealable order, I suffered substantial damages.


Question... because the agency's actions delayed my ability to seek a timely appeal by a significant amount of time, could there be a 1983 cause of action for denial of access to the courts and possibly for due process? "Justice delayed is justice denied." The underlying administrative proceedings were an egregious departure from the requirements of law and due process and we believe the order was issued in this way to prevent a petition for certiorari with an obvious outcome.

 

[Zigner]

How many threads do you intend to start relating to the same situation?

 

[tranquility]

I'd love to see the facts, but for the theory proposed, no. My guess is pro per who has no clue.

 

[AlexB18]

Not pro se - just checking what my attorney said about supplementing a complaint in which we're already awaiting summary judgment. Offer useful advice or refrain from posting.

 

[AlexB18]

Talks about supplementing the complaint came after depositions - I asked because he's on the fence about it at the moment but it was mentioned.

I believe I gave enough information to make a judgment call on that or to at least get a meaningful discussion... You don't have to believe or speculate on the rest of the facts.

 

[stealth2]

Talks about supplementing the complaint came after depositions - I asked because he's on the fence about it at the moment but it was mentioned.

I believe I gave enough information to make a judgment call on that or to at least get a meaningful discussion... You don't have to believe or speculate on the rest of the facts.

We also don't have to provide you any feedback. It is customary to be nice to those from whom you ask advice. You know - please, thank you, etc. You're welcome.

 

[tranquility]

Ah, your attorney told you no. I told you no. From the way you presented the facts, couching a ridiculous claim in superficially correct language, I opined you were a pro per.

Apparently, I was wrong.

You are a person who is "checking" on his attorney who has access to all facts and pleadings with the Internet through a severely limited, but we are assured complete enough, set of facts. I suspect, unless there is a bunch of things missing from your question, your attorney is not on the fence as much as has a difficult client who is trying to tell him what to do.

My advice is to listen to your attorney.

 

[AlexB18]

I've noticed a lot of abrasiveness on this forum - pardon me if I bit back. Difficult client, probably. Can't help but be cautious - it's saved me/helped in the past several times. As crazy as the facts and allegations are in this case, depositions proved to confirm them. I've had a hard time finding non-prisoner cases in which clear examples of denial of access to the courts were shown. However, with the facts of this case, I don't see how an otherwise merituous claim was not prejudiced by them deliberately entering an order that was unappealable (this is, however, a due process issue at least) - I'm not saying there's definitely a claim for "denial of access to the courts," I'm just trying to play devil's advocate in case I find something useful, I can always pass that information on.