| MICHELLE WILSON Appellant, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, and CHEYANNE COSTILLA, in her official capacity, and individually, Appellees. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case 1D2024-0476 L.T. No.: 2023-CA-1569 |
MOTION FOR REHEARING
|
Richard E. Johnson Florida Bar No. 858323 Law Offices of Richard E. Johnson 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (850) 425-1997 rick@rej-law.com |
MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant respectfully moves, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(a), for rehearing because, this morning, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that, in the view of the undersigned, makes impossible this Court’s determination in this case. Williams v. Reed, 604 U.S. __ (2025); 2025 WL 567335 (Feb. 21, 2025).In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional a state court regimen that made it impossible for a plaintiff to secure a merits-based ruling on her constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That outcome does not appear to be reasonably distinguishable from the one this Court would now be compelled to follow in this case.
Appellant herein moved heaven and earth to secure a merits decision on her federal constitutional claims. She briefed those claims extensively in her first appeal, only to get an opinion that carefully avoided mentioning those claims. So she filed a new action in circuit court seeking resolution of those as yet undisposed claims. The circuit court found that this Court’s failure to address the constitutional claims previously worked a preclusion in the nature of collateral estoppel that required an imitative refusal to rule on the constitutional claims. Now this Court has affirmed that holding without opinion.
There has thus been no point of entry for Appellant to obtain either a hearing or a determination of her constitutional claims. And now the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion binding on these facts, has forbidden the outcome reached in this case.
Today is the deadline for such motions in this Court. However, Appellant filed a motion for written opinion a few days early, not knowing the Supreme Court opinion would come out today. This poses a technical conflict with the part of Rule 9.330 that requires all motions to be in a single document. But that should be waived because seriatim holdings were not sought and the Supreme Court opinion could not have been anticipated.
Accordingly, Appellant respectfully moves for rehearing and for the Court to receive additional briefing from the parties on whether Williams v. Reed alters the outcome of this case.
|
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard E. Johnson Richard E. Johnson Florida Bar No. 858323 Law Office of Richard E. Johnson 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 850/ 425-1997 850/ 561-0836 rick@rej-law.com Counsel for Appellant |
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| /s/ Richard E. Johnson | |
| Richard E. Johnson |
