*1 convicted. Smith was CONCLUSION conduct which images to an pornography sent child Smith Accordingly, approve the decision we into a “place” by loading them Biller. electronic disapprove the Fourth District and, use through file his specific computer ordered. It so file-sharing program, those made images parties accessible third PARIENTE, LABARGA, C.J., and . then whom access was authorized. Smith LEWIS, POLSTON, QUINCE, request party a third sent “friend” a JJ., PERRY, concur. third party—through
which authorized the obtain access program—to
the file-sharing place images
to the had been which ' acts, By purposeful Smith those sent. delivery of images
caused the party place.
third to take District agree thus with We Fourth GREEN, Petitioner, Eric that Smith “sent and caused to deliv- be statuto- child under the pornography ered” Smith, ry definition “transmit.” COTTRELL, Calvin et elec- Smith is the 97. What did al., Respondents. equivalent of placing tronic box locked No. SC15-1805. pornographic photographs
filled telling front porch, a “friend” that Supreme Florida. on the he something porch there front 10, 2016. Nov. see, sending friend might want to key such spare to the locked In box. circumstances, although it hypothetical directly
might be said Smith did photos to the
send those deliver .and
friend, it the friend once undeniable photos, Smith
obtained access delivery to friend of
indeed caused photos previously had sent which porch. Accordingly,
his front hold file-sharing program, use originator
the’ the re- affirmatively grants originator’s por- child
ceiver access files,
nography constitutes transmis- pornography the plain
sion child
meaning of section 847.0137.
Biller erred by applying of leni- rule
ty on an unrea- 847.0137 based
sonably reading of cramped the statute.
Smith correctly declined the rule apply lenity to section 847.0137. *2 high aggressive risk due their
extreme al- and violent tendencies. The attack, in- leged prior deputies experienc- that he was formed inmates, ing conflict with the two *3 to situation had escalated threats. Green dormitory from the to be removed asked inmates were and where the two housed custody. placed protective in Green’s that one of inmates complaint asserted the recently in an been involved attack injury, inmate which in another resulted Auslander, John Gran- Morris Charles and attacked inmate had since been the Crabtree, and Brian Carson Tacken- ville custody. deputy placed protective One Auslander, P.A., Key berg, & Crabtree allegedly stated that not be Green should FL, Biscayne, for Petitioner. worried, arrange but he would for Peterson, Jr., Raymond Jolly, Pe- Carl speak to with the shift Green lieutenant. P.A., Tallahassee, Truckenbrod, terson & According complaint, to the when Green FL, Sergeant Bryant, D. Respondents for lieutenant, his to concerns reiterated Danny Cottrell. Cook and Calvin E. only that there lieutenant stated unit, one confinement which had limited LABARGA, C.J. bed and The space no available room. Eric Petitioner Green seeks review lieutenant also advised that he could of the First District Court the decision to dormitory. relocate Green another Cottrell, v. Appeal in Green dormitory, (Fla. 2015), When returned to the Green on the basis that it 1st DCA one of inmates accused him of “snitch- conflicts with expressly directly Cal- accusation, Nienhuis, (Fla. ing.” Upon hearing the houn 5th that he 2013), going other inmate said question DCA on a of law. We have beat to his cell V, 3(b)(3), Green. Green returned jurisdiction. See art. inside, to lock but below, attempted himself For the reasons Const. discussed open position. the lock was secured ap- quash the decision in Green and Calhoun, According complaint, pleaded Green prove holding not the deputies of the the lock one release analysis of Fifth District that case. coming were attack because inmates AND PROCEDURAL FACTS him, deputy but the failed to do so. Green
HISTORY “shank,” init placed retrieved a homemade waistband, 22, 2012, Eric his fled from cell. At On June inmate Green complaint against point, four em- the inmates attacked pro allegedly filed se Green, deputy ployees appeared Jail: a same Santa Rosa while ceased, lieutenant, deputies, fight two and a ser- watch. one of shift Once area, geant assigned hearing quickly offi- left the while who was as a inmates Green reports. disciplinary proceeded cer consider to chase other inmate. Sev- 22, 2008, appeared, eral alleged deputies on June then and Green A two inmates. interview room. jail was attacked at was escorted Green, the inmates According deputy all of searched Green discovered in his He dormitory housed in his classified shank waistband. was subse- were quently hospital to a taken claims, treatment Green’s federal law the court noted of his injuries,'which included stitches they governed by were the Prison Upon lip laceration. return to the Litigation (PLRA), Act and ex- Reform jail, placed in Green was administrative haustion of administrative remedies given a confinement and disciplinary re- mandatory. The court concluded that port later, fighting. days Two the Green’s transfer from the to Florida sergeant a hearing disciplinary held on the State Prison was insufficient to absolve report, after which he sentenced Green him requirement: the exhaustion . .' days disciplinary five confinement. Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint shows he upon facts as alleged grievance
Based prior filed being trans- complaint, But, Green raised claims under Flor- ferred. also shows that he did *4 negligence ida law of nothing and intentional inflic- up follow or to appeal any tion of against emotional distress the shift lack or negative answer decision.... deputies. lieutenant and the two Accordingly; Green four corners of the claimed that employees these Complaint itself show GREEN failed to exhaust, failed to exercise the reasonable care nec- his administrative remedies. essary to protect him from Where- an foreseeable inmate’s failure to dismiss they harm placed after were on “readily notice that apparent [sic] from Plaintiffs the inmates against had made pleadings attachments,” him. threats . sua and/or also Green raised federal law sponte dismissal the action without against employees. all four jail com- prejudice Here, The is appropriate. Plaintiff plaint following included the statement could have finished his administrative regard to the exhaustion of anytime adminis- remedies between the occur- trative remedies: fight rence with two- in- other 22, 2008; on and, mates June the mail-
The Plaintiff has his exhausted adminis- ing of his complaint years four later trative grievance remedies use 22, June If 2012. he had received a procedure that available him was at negative or response response all, no try S.R.C.J. and correct the viola- appeal he had. an However, mechanism available .to tions. the Plaintiff was-trans- him by following up with the Santa Rosa ferred back to Florida State Prison on But, pleading Jail. his admits he 30, or about June 2008. he nothing, simply did but “consider[ ] [his response was unable receive a or grievance] Accordingly, exhausted.” submit his grievances the next level. dismissal of all claims is only war- Accordingly, grievance process ranted, required. considered exhausted. (Citations omitted.) sought damages parentheticals
Green for both physical injury. emotional appeal, On challenged three 24, 2014, (1) On June the circuit court dis- the circuit determinations: court’s complaint. missed the The court conclud- to exhaust failed administrative reme- ed that Green’s state law claims prior were to bringing dies the federal (2) claims; time-barred section 95.11(5)(g), that the failure exhaust (2007), provides Statutes which apparent from the complaint; face of the one-year (3) for time limit “an action brought the state law claims were by or on prisoner, behalf of a as defined in one-year barred statute limita- 57.085, s. relating to the period tions 95.11(5)(g). conditions section Green, confinement.” regard With 172 at 1010. The First Dis-
26 186, Servs., Phillips, Inc. 126 So.3d first two affirmed Appeal Court of trict Tanner, (Fla.2013); also Hamilton v. Id. see challenges discussion. without 2007) (Fla. 997, DCA 2d cir- affirmed the court also The district (“A surrounding a statute legal issue one-year stat- holding cuit court’s is an issue of law sub question limitations 95.11(5)(g) section ute limitations review.”). ject to novo The standard de claims and re- governed state law Green’s for the review dismissal four-year time jected assertion Parcel United also de See Mlinar v. novo. 768.28(14),Florida Statutes limit section Serv., Inc., (2007), instead. Id. at applicable court noted that 1010-11. district The statute, oth- titled “Limitations The first 768.28, applies section enacted recovery property,” of real er than for the or one of “[e]very against claim provides: damages agencies or subdivisions real recovery other than Actions negligent wrongful act or omission as follows: property be commenced shall section_” pursuant Id. at Stat.). 768.28(14), (quoting Con- ONE YEAR.— WITHIN versely, 95.11(5)(g), en- which was brought by governs acted actions *5 to that relate prisoner
or behalf of a in (g) for Except actions described of prisoner’s confinement. conditions the (8) challenging cor- [actions subsection The First that the more District concluded disciplinary proceedings], rectional recently 95.11(5)(g) section enacted or of on behalf brought action statute, specific more and controlled 57.085,relating prisoner, s. as defined section'768.28(14). enacted over earlier of con- prisoner’s to the conditions disagreed Cal- Id. The district court with finement. houn, Fifth which terms, By plain § its 95.11(5)(g), Stat. Appeal held that District of prison- 95.11(5)(g) applies solely section to four-year of limitations in section statute defined,1 ers, statutorily as that term 768.28(14) negligence to a action applied relate to only and then actions that Green, against a sheriff. See
filed If either of their confinement. conditions at 1010. met, qualifications of is not these upon of granted review Green based
We 95.11(5)(g) apply. not does conflict with Calhoun. provides, cer- The second statute with here, applicable a four- exceptions tain
ANALYSIS year period against for actions limitations of Limitations Claim sovereign Statute government im- entities 768.28(14), munity §See has been waived. by this presented The first issue sovereign of Fla. Stat. The limited waiver governs of is which limitations case statute immunity provided for tort actions is raised Green’s com the state law claims section 768.28: statutory Questions interpreta of plaint. s. Art. X of are In of that accordance tion are matters law reviewed Constitution, state, for it- Raymond James Fin. State novo. See de (2016), 57.085(1), being custody held in or who is Florida Statutes crime Section 1. person sentencing.” prisoner who has been or pending as "a defines extradition incarcerated for of a crime convicted subdivisions, agencies elementary for its or is an principle statutory self and of “[i]t immunity sovereign significance hereby construction that waives effect liability torts, only given every word, extent must be sen phrase, tence, this specified part act. if possible, Actions statute agencies any the state or against in a words statute should not be con damages in surplusage.” or subdivisions recover strued as mere Hechtman money damages against York, tort tha Nations Title Ins. New or or its agencies state subdivisions fot argument An can be inju- injury property, or loss of personal single that every made thing happens ry, negligent or death prisoner caused or to a within the confines n omission, wrongful act or em- any prison qualifies or walls as a condition the agency However, or ployee of confinement. .subdivision were that the acting case, while em- scope within qualify be no there would need ployee’s employment or cir- prisoner the language actions with “relat office or cumstances which such ing the conditions ... confinement.” subdivision, agency private per- if a The one-year statute of limitations in sec son, claimant, would be liable to 95.11(5)(g) in tion simply applied could be general accordance with the laws “brought by all actions or on behalf state, may prosecuted subject be prisoner.”2 ensure specified in this phrase limitations act. “conditions con finement” does sur- constitute mere added.) (Emphasis counties are plusage, must meaning we determine the encompassed statute. within this stated, of this As language. have often 768.28(2), alleges Fla. Stat. Green intent “[l]egislative is the polestar while he housed at the Santa Rosa guides statutory a court’s construction Jail, physical injury suffered *6 State, analysis.” Bautista v. emotional and distress to the failure of due us, To assist we deputies pro- a shift lieutenant to two and chapter turn that enacted Therefore, tect from him an un- attack. of limitations. statute by less state law claims raised four-year fall 95.11(5)(g), under section preamble to chapter The law re- 768.28(14) statute of limitations in section 95.11(5)(g) that flects section enacted was to his applicable action. filings by curb frivolous and malicious prisoners: no question There is that Green WHEREAS, lawsuits inmate
satisfies the of section first condition frivolous congest delay the civil court dockets and a prisoner because he is that 95.11(5)(g) litigants, of justice for all administration 57.085(1). term is defined section How and ever, at alleged whether the attack WHEREAS, a year confine each self-represent-
constituted condition Green’s not explained, ment is indigent jails as clear. ed inmates and We have Florida’s l(5)(f), law, 2. that ter a applied We note section 95.1 Florida the Florida Legislature Statutes, group which the same under statute of limitations ah entire enacted filings. By making (5)(g) chapter 95,ll(5)(g), places prisoner law as section a subsection only one-year applicable statute of to those chal- limitations on all extraor- actions that confinement," petitions lenge dinary by writ of ... or on behalf a "conditions it filed prisoner, challenging Legislature except petitions evident that did not intend 96-106, impose one-year criminal conviction. See 96, of limita- ch. at a blanket statute Thus, chap- prisoner tions on Laws Fla. within the same all actions. lawsuits, ever-increasing encompass oner seem to file an number would prisons public expense prisoner lawsuits at the situation asserts he frivolous employees, negligent officers and against public physically injured due or wrongful prison/jail and acts or omissions of WHEREAS, employees. We cannot envision govern- local and Legislature, chap- Florida when enacted millions of dollars each spend ments goal limiting ter 96-106 frivo- defending with the processing, serving, and year lawsuits, lous or malicious also intended -by self-repre- filed lawsuits frivolous inmates, ability prisoner of a to’ seek and lessen the indigent sented legal injuries that physical redress WHEREAS, overwhelming major- at allegedly were suffered the hands ity by self-repre- filed civil lawsuits charged custody were with his those who are indigent inmates sented frivolous claim, face, clearly Such a care. actions intended embar- and malicious pancake paper plate or frivo- public rass or officers and em- harass filing variety, nothing lous in the ployees, and 96-106 preamble chapter suggests that WHEREAS, current law frivo- statutory changes were intended lawsuits dismissible lous inmate are legitimate by pris- limit apparently only expen- after the courts considerable oners. conclude judicial precious taxpayer diture of term of the confine- “conditions ... resources 95.11(5)(g) ment” in section not en- does 92-93, 96-106, (empha- Laws of Ch. compass prisoner the situation where a added). Frivolous is as “Lack- sis defined alleges physical suffered actual merit; ing legal legal or not seri- basis injury or negligent wrongful due to the act ous; reasonably purposeful.” Black’s employee govern- omission of a (9th ed.2009). A Dictionary Law Sen- entity. ment Analysis Impact Economic ate Staff types provided examples Statement provisions chapter Other law that legislative spearheaded of claims 95.11(5)(g) support enacted section our action: For cre- example, conclusion. law also recently been
Some lawsuits
have
57.085,
Florida Statutes
ated
publicized
Attorney
Gen-
(2016), which
deferral of
addresses the
*7
eral
inmates who sued because
include
prepayment
court costs and fees for
they
to be served more than two
wanted
96-106, §
indigent prisoners.
ch.
See
pancakes and fresh milk rather
than
57.085(6)
93-95,
pro-
Laws
Fla. Section
milk,
inmate found
reconstituted
one
indigent
may
prisoner
vides
before an
sued,
gristle
turkey
an-
judicial
initiate' a
“the
proceeding,
court
other
he had to
inmate sued because
eat must
the
review
claim deter-
paper
off
plates.
legally
mine whether
it
sufficiént
Comm,
for
Justice,
state a cause of
which the
court
Fla. S.
Crim.
action
SB
jurisdiction
may
has
Analysis
grant
relief.”
Senate Staff
and Economic
subsection,
required
a
Impact Statement on
this
court
Committee Substi- Under
dismiss,
27,1995).
or
of a
(Sept.
part
tute for
at 2
all
claim
SB
which:
(a) Fails to
a claim for which
the definition of
Neither
frivolous
may be granted;
relief
that,
understood,
commonly
as
nor
term
(b)
examples
analysis
monetary
cited
staff
as
from a de-
the
Seeks
relief
relief;
pris-
for
need to
immune from
a basis
curb frivolous
who is
such
fendant
(c) Seeks
mental or
emotion-
ated
or
crime who is being
held
relief for
injury
custody
al
where there has been
pending
no relat-
extradition or sentenc-
ing”).
allegation
ed
a physical
injury;
plaintiff
or
Because the
in Calhoun
presumably
yet
not
convicted of
(d)
frivolous,
been
malicious,
Is
or reason-
crime,
a
not
she could
be prisoner
pursu-
ably appears to be intended to harass
57.085(1),
ant to section
one-year
and the
one or more named defendants.
statute of
limitations
section 95.11(5)(g)
§ 57.085(6),
added).
(emphasis
Stat.
apply
Instead,
her action.
would
Thus,
Legislature
treat claims
chose to
four-year
statute of limitations
sec-
in.
physical injury’
differently from claims
768.28(14)
tion
governed. Thus,
Fifth
a prisoner alleges
mental or emo-
District in Calhoun
right
reached the
con-
alone,
tional injury
in that
they are
clusion as to which
statute
limitations
subject mandatory
dismissal.
applied
case,
to the action in that
upon
foregoing,
Based
we hold
incorrect
disap-
reason.
where,
here,
a prisoner
files an prove
analysis
of the Fifth District
action alleging that he
physical
suffered
without further discussion.
injury
negligent
due to the
or wrongful
Exhaustion
Remedies Claim
acts or omissions of
employees
of a
additionally
contends that
government entity, the one-year
statute
the circuit court erred when it dismissed
period
95.11(5)(g)—a
limitations
his federal law claims for
failure
exhaust
provision
part
enacted as
of a chapter law
administrative
Although
remedies.
that was intended to
filings
curb frivolous
’
First District affirmed the dismissal of
prisoners—does
Instead,
not apply.
elaboration,
these
without
once this
four-year
statute
limitations
sec
accepts jurisdiction
over a-ease to
768.28(14) governs.
tion
Accordingly, we
legal
conflict,
resolve a
issue in
may
that the First District
conclude
erroneous
any
consider
other issue
properly
that is
ly affirmed the dismissal of Green’s state
argued.
State,
raised and
See Savoie v.
untimely.
law-claims as
previ
As
discussed,
ously
standard
review
Calhoun Nienhuis
dismissal
is de novo.
Green,
Unlike the First District in
Mlinar,
ly section 95.11(5)(g) only ap- Prisoners must now exhaust all “avail- plies prisoners to remedies, that term just as is defined able” not those that meet .., 57.085(1), section 57.085. See prison- Fla. Stat. federal standards. Indeed a (defining prisoner a person as “a who er must has now exhaust administrative been of a crime convicted and is incarcer- remedies sought— even where the relief
30 al prisoner to where the failure exhaust granted be
monetary damages—cannot leged process, . that administrative remedies had administrative by the Dep’t See v. been exhausted. Miller 85,126 81, S.Ct. Ngo, v. 548 U.S. Woodford Corr., (Fla. 574, 1st DCA 172 574 So.3d (2006) (citation 2378, 368 165 L.Ed.2d 2015) (reversing petition dismissal Further, Court Supreme omitted). the prisoner writ mandamus where asserted prison that cases where noted has had all available that “he ‘exhausted ave claims, is cor it ers raise federal nues administrative review via in that process facility’s grievance rectional ... grievance procedure,’ and mate Bock, See Jones v. must be exhausted. exhaustion remedies administrative 199, 910, 166 218, 127 S.Ct. 549 U.S. appeal grievance [was] reflected ‘inmate pris (“Compliance with L.Ed.2d 798 13-6-15500’”); log Bailey, 958 number that is ... is grievance procedures all on (reversing dismissal So.2d at 987-88 ex to ‘properly required by the PLRA prisoner' alleged that where the in a necessary The of detail haust.’ level reme he all had “exhausted administrative' grievance to grievance comply with dies”). system sys from to vary will procedures claim, pris is claim to tem and Further, can to issues as fact arise PLRA, not requirements, that on’s reme were administrative whether there proper defíne boundaries exhaus - so, and if prisoner, dies available .to a has, tion.”). Supreme The held also The he whether exhausted them. district to is an affirmative exhaust failure courts have-reversed dismissals failure PLRA, prisoners defense to exhaust administrative remedies required not to demonstrate plead are to factual as matters exist questions such 216, complaints. in their Id. at exhaustion Crews, ed. For example, Owens v. 910; v. Bailey Dep’t see also 127 S.Ct. (Fla. 799, 2013), 1st So.3d DCA 799-800 (Fla. DCA ofCorr., 958 4th District court’s the First reversed circuit 2007) (relying on Bock sec to failure administra dismissal exhaust tion 1983 action to conclude the failure “a tive issue of disputed remedies where to be to an affirmative defense exhaust concerning Depart fact whether exist[ed] defendant, and the pled by prisoner provided respons timely ment officials exhaustion). no obligation plead had [Qwens], take es the court did Thus, Supreme competent, under the Court’s reach substantial evidence PLRA, interpretation of Green was not determination door review required plead exhaustion See also administra circuit court closed.” Rosa Adlington Mosley, tive remedies at Santa v. 2000) (Fla. pled The fact (reversing
Jail. exhaustion did DCA dismissal 4th him to place burden for failure reme demon exhaust administrative actually remanding strate- he had exhausted for a dies determination grievance whatever administrative an remedies whether.there was inmate Rather, implemented jail. prisoner, been procedure available who regard establishing proof burden privately run correctional housed lies with a facility), affirmative defense defen dant; here, employees. Custer Co., granting
Med. Ctr. Auto. The review an order Ins. United to the four a motion to dismiss confined dis *9 Mlinar, 186 trict of the See complaint. courts have reversed corners dismissals
31 Further, PLRA, ‘allegations at 1004.3 “[t]he So.3d failure an to exhaust affirmative defense, are to be assumed true prisoners required and are demonstrate, arising all there and reasonable inferences in exhaustion their com- ” plaintiff.’ are in favor from allowed plaints); Custer, at (stating Dean, 1035, (quoting Id. Wallace prov- has burden of the defendant (Fla.2009)). Here, 1042-43 circuit defense). ing an affirmative recognized court it was bound the First affirmance cir- District’s however, rule; “four corners” the court cuit court’s dismissal was in similarly er- by making assump then this rule violated ror. tions about what administrative remedies were after available Green his transfer CONCLUSION jail from the correctional facility state upon foregoing, Based decision eight days approximately alleged after the of the First of Appeal District Court in court attack. The circuit referenced quashed, Green is and this matter is re- that, Green’s because statement his manded the district court for further transfer, he “was unable receive re proceedings consistent with this opinion. sponse or submit his the next grievance disapprove reasoning of We Fifth accepting allegation level.” Instead Calhoun, District in Appeal Court of true, Mlinar, as required by as holding court’s ultimate that the (1) at the circuit court assumed that four-year limitations in statute of not extinguish the transfer Green did 768.28(14) applied to the action grievance moot; (2) render Green case. an had mechanism to up available follow grievance on the when he did not receive a It is so ordered. ’
response jail; from the if even decision, an had received adverse PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and appeal an process available for in PERRY; JJ., concur. grievances, mates who filed but are no Thus, facility. at
longer POLSTON, housed factual J., in part concurs remain issues as to what administrative an in.part opinion, dissents in which procedures place were Santa J,, CANADY, concurs. Rosa Jail 2008 and what POLSTON, J., concurring part and capable complying extent Green was dissenting part.
with them once to a he was transferred facility. different suit from alleged inju- arises Petitioner’s ries received from other inmates housed Accordingly, we hold that the circuit the same dormitory, who Petitioner be- erroneously court dismissed Green’s feder- high lieved were considered risk be- Although al law claims. its conclusion that aggressive their cause violent ten- Green had not exhausted administrative His law correct, alleging dencies. may ultimately be remedies negligent housing jail employees assignment and emo- burden fell on'the to dem- tional Bock, onstrate that he do so. distress to the failed to relate conditions (under are, therefore, U.S. at subject S.Ct. 910 his confinement jail employees. It not clear whether a motion to dismiss motion to dismiss oral However, (cid:127) regard made with federal the answer brief filed with this rehearing suggests claims. In his circuit motion court’s dismiss- order, sponte. circuit court’s referenced al sua *10 physician approved of limitation medical and one-year statute licensed Assistance, Inc.; by Lawyers Florida Florida 95.11(5)(g), Statutes. personnel in- However, allegations (c) actively program participate during the alterca- tentionally failing to act Assistance, by Lawyers Florida offered of the constitution relate in violation tion during probationary period Inc. the entire agree I law claims. with to his federal by with con- complying rehabilitation federal law that Petitioner’s majority organization on tract executed have dismissed. should not been 2015, 27, by extending the con- May and period proba- tract to cover the entire J., CANADY, concurs. necessary; tion if (d) actively in Re- participate SMART least, covery attending, weekly at by meet- ings required by as frequency at such Assistance, Inc.; Lawyers practice Florida Recovery principles in all of his SMART carry the Recovery affairs SMART FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR to other individuals with a message sub- re
EXAMINERS J.A.M. disorder; stance use No. SC16-2041. (e) attorney support meetings attend monthly, greater or at least such fre- Supreme Court of Florida. FLA; required by quency as 15, Nov. 2016. (f) pay for a minimum submit drug^alcohol of six random urine AMENDED ORDER1 annually, any hair, well screens as as other Report Upon consideration of blood, sweat, or other substance screening by the Florida Recommendation filed appropriate by tests be determined Examiners, Bar Board of is ordered FLA; and is approved the Board’s recommendation quarterly be by (g) the Court and J.A.M. shall admitted submit sworn state- 31, following Florida Florida subject to The Bar ments to The Bar March 30, 30, September conditions: June and December 31 attesting during probationary period applicant’s 1. The license practice his compliance with the conditions set placed probation shall be for a (c), (b), (d) (e) 2(a), forth in above. years May period of five from 2015. Bar shall monitor 3.The During probation, period 2. Agree- forth conditions set the Consent applicant shall: l-3.2(b) pursuant ment to Rule (a) consumption abstain from the Bar, Regulating Rules The Florida and the beverages; alcoholic paid be applicant costs shall thereof (b) from Bar moni- designated abstain the use controlled The Florida toring except prescribed by duly agency. substances Anonymous. require Amended November stead of 1. Alcoholics/Narcotics participate Recovery in SMART in- J.A.M. to