What did the court decide?

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and provided no written opinion explaining its reasons.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects petitioner David Nathaniel Reese and the named respondents, the Attorney General and the Florida Department of Children and Families; it does not grant the relief Reese sought.

Because the petition was denied, Reese remains without the mandamus relief he sought; he may consider other available legal remedies, subject to appellate timing rules.

Can this denial be appealed or reconsidered?

The order notes it is not final until disposition of any timely motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331, so Reese may file authorized motions for rehearing or rehearing en banc as permitted by those rules.

Reese v. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Florida Department of Children and Families

Docket 1D2025-2959

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDenied

Filed: May 5, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 1D2025-2959

Original petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the First District Court of Appeal

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied David Nathaniel Reese’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief against the Attorney General and the Department of Children and Families. The court considered an original petition filed by Reese and, without published opinion or extended explanation, entered a per curiam order denying the request. The denial leaves in place the lower-court or administrative course of action that Reese sought to change and provides no relief from the challenged decision or duty he asked the court to compel.

Issue Decided

Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Attorney General or Department of Children and Families to perform a specified act or correct an alleged legal wrong.

Court's Reasoning

The court issued a per curiam denial without explanation, indicating that Reese did not meet the standards for mandamus relief. Mandamus requires a clear legal right to relief, a clear legal duty by the respondent, and no adequate remedy available by other means; the denial implies those elements were not established. Because the court provided no further analysis, the specific factual or legal deficiencies are not stated in the opinion.

Parties

Petitioner: David Nathaniel Reese
Respondent: James Uthmeier, Attorney General
Respondent: Florida Department of Children and Families

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-05

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If eligible, timely file a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 to ask the court to reconsider its denial.
2
Consult an attorney
Discuss with counsel whether the petition can be improved or whether alternative remedies (e.g., filing in the trial court, seeking other relief) are available and appropriate.
3
Check and preserve deadlines
Confirm the deadlines for any rehearing or further appellate filings and preserve all procedural rights by timely filings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and provided no written opinion explaining its reasons.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects petitioner David Nathaniel Reese and the named respondents, the Attorney General and the Florida Department of Children and Families; it does not grant the relief Reese sought.
What happens next?: Because the petition was denied, Reese remains without the mandamus relief he sought; he may consider other available legal remedies, subject to appellate timing rules.
Can this denial be appealed or reconsidered?: The order notes it is not final until disposition of any timely motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331, so Reese may file authorized motions for rehearing or rehearing en banc as permitted by those rules.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2025-2959
                  _____________________________

DAVID NATHANIEL REESE,

    Petitioner,

    v.

JAMES UTHMEIER, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, and FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES,

    Respondents.
               _____________________________


Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Proceedings.


                          May 5, 2026


PER CURIAM.

    DENIED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
               _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________
David Nathaniel Reese, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.




                                 2