Opinion
Case No. SC05-429.
April 7, 2005.
Lower Tribunal No. 3D05-180.
As petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 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). See State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 152 Fla. 400, 403, 11 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1943) (stating that "mandamus cannot be maintained to control or direct the manner in which [a] court shall act in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction"); Migliore v. City of Lauderhill, 415 So. 2d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (stating that mandamus "is [not] proper to mandate the doing (or undoing) of a discretionary act"), approved, 431 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1983). Petitioner's "Emergency Motion to Stop Sale of Appellant's Home" is denied as moot.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE and BELL, JJ., concur.