Relator filed petition requesting writs of mandamus and procedendo against municipal court judge, city prosecutor, city attorney, and city, seeking orders requiring respondents to take certain actions concerning two dismissed criminal cases against relator.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals, upon respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed petition. Relator appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:
- No conflict of interest existed with respect to counsel for respondents;
- Referral to special master was unwarranted;
- Respondents would not be ordered to show cause why they should not be held in contempt;
- Adequate remedy in ordinary course of law precluded mandamus relief against judge;
- Relator was not entitled to writ of procedendo directing judge to rule on relator’s motion in criminal action;
- Adequate remedy in ordinary course of law precluded mandamus relief against city; and
- Relator was not entitled to damages.