Crews v. Malara, 123 So. 3d 144

Malara exhausted administrative remedies for a prison disciplinary action.
Final DOC denial occurred and Malara filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court on April 5, 2010.
The face-stamped date showed April 6, 2010, one day after the 30-day limit under §95.11(8).
The circuit court initially denied DOC’s motion to dismiss and granted mandamus based on Thompson’s certificate-of-service inference.
The DOC argued the petition was untimely and thus lacked jurisdiction; the circuit court disagreed.
This Court grants certiorari and holds the petition was untimely; the circuit court’s order isquashed and remanded for dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the mandamus petition timely under §95.11(8)?	Malara relies on the certificate of service and Thompson to toll timing.	The official date stamp shows late filing beyond 30 days.	Untimely; must be dismissed.
Does the mailbox rule affect timeliness for prison filings here?	The stamp and initialing create a presumption of timely filing.	The late date stamp defeats timeliness despite Thompson mechanics.	Mailbox rule applied; timeliness remains governed by actual date, not stamp alone.
Does the DOC rule 33-210.102(8)(g) and related procedures rebut the presumption of timely filing?	Rule supports presumption of timely delivery.	DOC’s mechanism can rebut the presumption if date reflects late delivery.	Date stamp reflects late delivery; petition untimely.

Hale v. McDonough, 970 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (jurisdictional time limits for prisoner disciplinary review)
Whitfield v. Department of Corrections, 107 So.3d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (unauthorized administrative remedies do not toll time limits)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (mailbox rule for filing by incarcerated litigants)
Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1992) (adoption of mailbox rule for inmate filings)
Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2000) (certificate of service creates presumption of timely filing)