Case ID: so2d_470/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BARFIELD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Bruce CRIBBS, Douglas L. Adams and Joe L. Holland, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.
    No. AZ-205.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 29, 1985.
    Rehearing Denied July 9, 1985.
    Carl Bruce Cribbs, pro se, for appellants.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Arthur C. Wallberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J„ concur.

BARFIELD, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

BARFIELD, Judge,

concurs:

The hearing officer erred in holding that inmates of Union Correctional Institution were not substantially affected parties in a challenge to an interoffice memorandum and an institutional operating procedure governing hours during which inmates could watch television. However, the memorandum and operating procedure are not rules subject to challenge under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1983), Department of Corrections v. Holland, et al., 469 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Adams v. Department of Corrections, 469 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Department of Cor rections v. Adams, 458 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Corrections v. Sumner, 447 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). I therefore agree to affirming the dismissal of the petition.