Court Opinion

ID: 4246357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-20 15:09:53.333032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:55.138815
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D18-0297
                  _____________________________

PATRICE KERR,

    Petitioner,

    v.

SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COURT,

    Respondent.
                  _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus–Original Jurisdiction.

                         February 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

     Patrice Kerr filed a tort suit against several public officials
and other defendants, seeking monetary and injunctive relief.
Claiming the trial court has not timely ruled on his pending
motions, Kerr seeks a writ of mandamus. But in a civil case like
this one, “it is the litigant’s obligation to take such actions as are
necessary to prosecute the case to final disposition, and, in the
course of that, to file such motions as may be necessary and bring
those motions to the trial court’s attention for a ruling.” Thomas
v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 74 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Because Kerr has made no showing that he has taken such
actions, his petition is DENIED.

JAY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Patrice Kerr, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

                                    2