## Facts

- Marshall Mitchell, a Florida inmate, sought appellate review after a circuit court treated his habeas petition as mandamus and denied relief.
- The district court of appeal ordered him to pay a filing fee or obtain an indigency determination within a set time.
- Mitchell sought indigency status by filing an affidavit of insolvency in the trial court.
- Before the trial court ruled on indigency, the district court dismissed the appeal.
- The trial court later denied indigency solely because Mitchell did not attach copies of prior complaints or initial pleadings from the preceding five years, as required by section 57.085(7), Florida Statutes.
- Mitchell unsuccessfully sought rehearing in the trial court and reinstatement in the district court.
- Mitchell petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.
- While his petition was pending, the Florida Supreme Court invalidated the same statutory copy requirement in a separate decision on state constitutional access-to-courts grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether section 57.085(7)’s requirement that indigent prisoners attach copies of prior pleadings unconstitutionally burdens the right of access to courts under article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution.
2. Whether the decision invalidating the copy requirement applies retroactively to cases dismissed or indigency determinations denied under that requirement.
3. Whether mandamus is an available remedy to require lower courts to disregard the unconstitutional copy requirement and allow the prisoner to proceed.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court held the statutory copy requirement unconstitutional as an impermissible burden on prisoners’ access to courts.
- The Court concluded the rule invalidating the copy requirement applies retroactively under Florida’s retroactivity framework for new constitutional rules.
- The Court granted mandamus relief, directing that Mitchell’s attempt to proceed as indigent and pursue appellate review could not be blocked by enforcement of the invalid copy requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution bars statutory conditions that unreasonably obstruct an indigent litigant’s access to judicial review.
- A statutory indigency procedure is unconstitutional if it imposes a practical barrier that indigent prisoners cannot realistically satisfy, thereby preventing court access.
- Under Florida’s retroactivity test for new constitutional rules, a decision may apply retroactively when it is constitutional in nature and of fundamental significance to the fairness of the process, including access to judicial review.
- Mandamus may issue to compel performance of a clear legal duty when a lower tribunal lacks authority to continue enforcing an unconstitutional statutory condition.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court invalidated the prisoner indigency copy requirement, applied that constitutional ruling retroactively, and granted mandamus to ensure Mitchell could seek appellate review without being denied indigency status based on the unconstitutional condition.


Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001)