Shaquon R. Johnson, Appellant, v. Richard D. Comerford, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee. (2026)

Shaquon Johnson appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus as moot pertaining to his request for a copy of a legal filing that he made while an inmate at a correctional institution. We reverse the dismissal of his petition because the petition wasn't moot. A fact dispute lingered between the parties as to whether the Department provided the requested documents to Johnson.

Johnson's petition alleged that law library personnel refused to provide him with a complete copy of a certain rehearing notice that he filed in federal court. In response to an order to show cause, the Department claimed to have provided a complete copy of the requested documents to Johnson so that the petition was now moot. Based on the Department's response, and before considering Johnson's reply to the response, the trial court dismissed Johnson's petition as moot.

For his part, Johnson denied receiving a complete copy of the requested documents. He filed a response that disputed the Department's response to the order to show cause and ultimately appealed to this court that his case shouldn't have been dismissed as moot. Johnson claims on appeal that his case is “not moot” and that Department personnel provided “false information because ․ he was only provided [some of the requested documents].” Johnson's appeal also challenges the Department's broader policy of “refus[ing] to make copies of general affidavits written on behalf of other inmates, [which interferes] with inmates’ civil proceedings [by forcing them] to send the clerk of courts the only copies of their general affidavits.”

Without reaching Johnson's departmental policy argument, we reverse because the record shows that a fact dispute remains between the parties as to whether Johnson received the requested documents. The Department response to the order to show cause supplies evidence that it delivered them to Johnson. But Johnson's response to the Department's filing and his briefing here denies having received them. The upshot is that an unresolved factual dispute remains in the case which prevents the petition from being considered moot. On remand, the trial court should resolve the parties’ competing claims. See Tracy v. State, 219 So. 3d 958, 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (reversing the dismissal of a mandamus petition where factual disputes remained); cf. Lewis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 78 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding error where a trial court dismissed a petition prior to the filing of a petitioner's reply).

Reversed and Remanded.

Osterhaus, C.J.

Rowe and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.