Opinion
Case No. SC05-1534.
June 15, 2006.
Lower Tribunal No. 5D05-291.
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). To the extent the Petitioner is seeking mandamus relief against the Respondent in the instant petition, the petition is denied as successive. See Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477, 478 (Fla. 1975) (declaring that once a petitioner seeks relief in a particular court by means of a petition for extraordinary writ, he has picked his forum and is not entitled to a second or third opportunity for the same relief by the same writ in a different court).
Respondent's response to motion for enlargement of time has been treated as a motion to dismiss and is hereby denied as moot.
WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.