Internal Operating Procedures
Florida's District Court of Appeals
IOP 1 | INTRODUCTION
IOP 2.1 | JURISDICTION
The territorial jurisdiction of the court includes the following twenty-nine counties:
IOP 2.2 | HOURS OF OPERATION
IOP 2.3 | AFTER-HOURS ACCESS
IOP 2.4 | SITTINGS AWAY FROM COURT
IOP 2.5 | ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
IOP 2.6 | WEBSITE
IOP 2.7 | COURT PROPERTY
IOP 2.8 | ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
IOP 3.1 | JUDGES AND JUDICIAL STAFF
IOP 3.2 | THE CHIEF JUDGE
All matters of court policy are to be decided by the active judges on the court. The chief judge shall ensure that the various policies adopted by the judges of the court are given full force and effect. The court may decide court policy on any issue of interest to the court including policies on the selection, retention, employment, promotion, and compensation of employees; court budget; court facilities; or any other matter not governed by the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration or these Internal Operating Procedures.
If no one receives a majority of votes, a run-off election will be conducted between the two judges receiving the most votes on the previous ballot. The absentee ballot will be counted in any runoff election as being cast for the same judge as in the original election if that judge is still a candidate in the runoff election. In the event that no candidate receives a majority vote of all the sitting judges in the run-off election and there are any absentee ballots being cast, then the run-off election will be postponed until such time as the judge(s) casting the absentee ballot(s) have an opportunity to participate.
2. Reduce the chief judge’s merits panel assignments as primary judge by up to two cases per case assignment month for months identified.
4. Assign up to ten of the chief judge’s merits panel cases to a senior or an associate judge for one or two merits panel sessions during the calendar year.
IOP 3.3 | THE CLERK
The clerk also shall retain correspondence related to cases. Letters and other documents submitted to the court or any of the judges or their staff from an organization or person outside the court that relate to a case shall be retained in the correspondence file in accordance with rule 2.430 and shall be available for inspection by the public except those exempted by statute, rule or court order.
IOP 3.4 | THE MARSHAL
IOP 4.1 | RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES
The court recognizes that the clerk’s recusal list will not identify all cases involving conflicts. Parties may submit for information, on the docketing statement, a list of judges of this court who they believe should not be assigned to the case for conflict reasons. However, this listing on the docketing statement does not supplant the need to file an appropriate separate motion if a party seeks to disqualify a judge
If a judge identifies a conflict necessitating recusal from a case on which the judge has been assigned, the judge shall notify the clerk, who will designate a substitute judge based upon a rotation system. If the judge identifying the conflict is the primary judge on the case, the judge’s staff will usually remain involved to assist the substitute judge to the extent possible or necessary.
IOP 4.2 | DISCLOSURE OF ASSIGNED JUDGE
The identity of the panel scheduled to hear oral argument in a case may be posted or otherwise revealed once the schedule for argument is posted or published on the court’s website.
IOP 4.3 | ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CONFERENCES
Fourteen (14) calendar days prior to court conference, the chief judge shall email a reminder to each judge of the court, the clerk, the marshal, and the director of central staff regarding the date and time of the court conference. The email shall also request submissions for the court conference agenda. The court conference agenda, with any appropriate attachments, shall be distributed to the court by the chief judge seven (7) calendar days prior to court conference. Only matters appearing on the agenda shall be taken up at court conference unless a majority of those judges in attendance, upon a showing of good cause relating to the failure to timely include the matter on the court conference agenda, vote to consider other matter(s).
IOP 4.4 | REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT OF INTERNAL OPERATION PROCEDURES
IOP 5.1 | SCHEDULING AND ASSIGNING CASES
5.1.1 Emergency Panels
Cases that appear to address termination of parental rights or child dependency are reviewed by the court staff immediately after they are filed to identify any jurisdictional defects and to determine if the case is properly classified as a termination or dependency case. The court then issues an order which:
(2) provides that extensions of time will not be granted to court reporters, lower tribunal clerks charged with preparing the record, or to the parties, except when emergency circumstances are shown; and
(3) requires the appellant to notify the court of the name and address of the court reporter who is to prepare any transcripts.
Prior to being assigned to a panel of judges for merits consideration, each dependency and termination case is reviewed weekly in the clerk’s office to ensure that it is proceeding in accordance with the rules. If action is required to assure that the case is treated by the parties as an expedited case, the court will issue any necessary orders. These expedited cases are assigned to regular merits’ panels for a decision in certain predesignated expedited case slots that are held for sensitive cases. If even quicker action is required the case will be assigned to the weekly emergency panel. Further, law clerks, judges and panels are expected to review dependency and termination of parental rights cases and other expedited cases ahead of their other cases.
IOP 5.2 | ORAL ARGUMENT
IOP 5.3 | PANEL CONFERENCE
IOP 5.4 | OPINIONS
Expedited release and emergency release shall be reserved only for those cases which, of necessity, should not be delayed for the normal pre-release period. Requests for expedited release or emergency release must be joined by at least two panel members, and must be approved by the chief judge. In the case of the absence of the chief judge, and when the majority of the panel believes approval should not be delayed, approval of the acting chief judge is required. If there is no acting chief judge appointed or available, approval of the most senior judge of the court who is available and who is not a member of the panel on the opinion being considered must be obtained.
Along with the request for expedited or emergency release, the panel or the primary judge must include a written explanation of the necessity for expedited or emergency treatment. The request should show, at the least,
2) the justice of the cause requires expedited or emergency treatment; and,
3) the necessity for emergency or expedited treatment outweighs the benefit normally gained by standard circulation.
During this pre-release period, any judge on the court can contact the primary judge or other judges on the panel with comments and suggestions or make a request for en banc consideration.
No opinion may issue or be released before it has been circulated for review pursuant to this rule.
If a non-panel member desires to withdraw an opinion for the purpose of recommending a change, clarification, or correction, he or she may request any panel member to do so or in the absence of all members of the panel, may request the chief judge or acting chief judge to withdraw the opinion.
Any opinion in pre-release that requires a substantive change (i.e., one that alters the meaning of the opinion or any portion thereof) must be withdrawn and recirculated on pre-release. Non-substantive changes may be made to an opinion in pre-release provided the primary judge provides adequate notice of the changes to all judges and the clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Monday immediately preceding the Wednesday release date for the opinion. To provide adequate notice, the primary judge shall
2) upload the redline version and the final version of the revised opinion to the case management system, and
3) send the final version of the revised opinion to the clerk’s office.
In the event a judge becomes concerned that an opinion on pre-release is inappropriate because it may be unprofessional, may damage collegiality on the court, or may otherwise have a negative impact on the public trust and confidence in the court, the judge shall promptly advise the chief judge, who will withdraw the opinion before release. Within 5 days of receiving information concerning such a matter, the chief judge shall appoint a committee to investigate and seek to resolve the matter. The three members of the committee shall be the chief judge, the most senior judge on the court, and the most junior judge on the court. If the matter should involve any of those judges, the involved judge shall be replaced on the committee with the chief judge-designate replacing the chief judge, the second most senior judge replacing the most senior, and the second most junior judge replacing the most junior. The committee shall have the authority and discretion to delay the release of that opinion for a period not to exceed 30 days from the date it was withdrawn by the chief judge, unless a shorter period of time is voted by the majority of the court.
IOP 5.5 | REHEARING MOTIONS
IOP 5.6 | HANDLING OF POST-DISPOSITION MOTIONS BY ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND SENIOR JUDGES
IOP 5.7 | MANDATES
IOP 6.1 | PARTY REQUEST
Twenty days shall be allowed for consideration of the motion by members of the court. The clerk shall neither issue a panel order denying rehearing nor release the mandate prior to the expiration of twenty days after the motion for rehearing en banc is filed.
No vote will be taken on the motion for rehearing en banc unless requested by a judge in regular active service on the court, which request, barring extraordinary circumstances, is made within twenty days after a motion for rehearing en banc is filed.
IOP 6.2 | JUDGE REQUEST
IOP 6.3 | PANEL REQUEST
IOP 6.4 | GROUNDS
IOP 6.5 | REQUEST PROCEDURE
IOP 6.6 | CLERK NOTIFICATION
IOP 6.7 | EN BANC PANEL
IOP 6.8 | VOTE ON REQUEST FOR EN BANC CONSIDERATION
Upon request of any judge, the foregoing time periods may be shortened at the discretion of the chief judge. The time for voting may be extended by the chief judge for any judge who is absent from the court for all or substantially all of the voting period. Any regular active judge who does not timely vote shall be deemed to have abstained.
At the end of the en banc voting period the director of central staff shall tabulate the votes and notify all judges and the clerk of the results. Upon an evenly divided vote on a request for en banc consideration, any judge may call for conference discussion of the issues and may poll the members of the court for a vote on reconsideration. If the court remains evenly divided, the request for en banc consideration fails.
When there is a vote by the majority of the judges participating in favor of en banc consideration, the clerk shall:
(2) issue an order notifying the parties that the proceeding will be determined en banc; and
(3) take no further action on the case except at the direction of the chief judge or of the court en banc.
IOP 6.9 | EN BANC ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
IOP 6.10 | DISSOLUTION OF EN BANC
IOP 6.11 | EN BANC CONFERENCE
(2) an opportunity for presentation in opposition by an appropriate judge designated by the chief judge;
(3) opportunity for discussion, in order of seniority, by all participating judges; and
(4) vote on the merits in order of seniority.
IOP 6.12 | EN BANC DISPOSITION
IOP 6.13 | EN BANC OPINION
Following the en banc conference, the judge assigned to write the majority opinion shall provide copies of that opinion via email to the other judge or judges who also intend to write. Once all opinions have been finalized, they will be provided to the director of central staff who shall assemble them into a single document and electronically transmit copies of the document to the judges of the court. Each judge thereafter shall promptly notify the director of central staff by email whether he or she votes to concur in or dissent from the proposed majority disposition and whether he or she joins or notes the respective opinions. Once this process is complete, the director of central staff shall prepare a tag line that reflects the cumulative result of these notifications. The tag line shall include the names of the judges participating in the en banc proceeding and reflect any judges who are recused or did not participate. The single document with tag line will then be transmitted to the clerk of court for pre-release. The director of central staff shall be responsible for processing proposed non-substantive changes to all opinions in the single document and coordinating and consulting with the author of any affected opinion.
The en banc opinion shall include the majority opinion, concurring opinion(s), concurring and dissenting opinion(s), and dissenting opinion(s), in that order. If there is more than one opinion in one of these categories, (e.g., two dissents) they will generally appear in order of seniority, the senior judge’s opinion appearing first. A judge with priority, however, may request that the chief judge approve a different sequence of opinions.
An opinion concurring with or dissenting from the court’s denial of a judge’s request for hearing en banc shall not be permitted. Opinions concurring with or dissenting from the court’s denial of a motion for rehearing en banc filed by a party shall be permitted. For unsuccessful requests for hearing en banc before release of the panel opinion, the panel opinion shall be placed on pre-release for three business days after en banc voting closes and then released. An order denying a motion for rehearing en banc, filed by a party, shall be issued when the panel rules on a motion for rehearing, if filed, or the time for rehearing has passed. An opinion concurring with or dissenting from the court’s order denying a party’s motion for rehearing en banc shall be permitted and shall be issued with the panel’s order or opinion disposing of the motion. Such opinions and orders shall be transmitted to Thomson Reuters/West Publishing by the clerk to appear as a single entry in the Southern Reporter.
The director of central staff shall be responsible for verifying that all judges have voted and that all opinions have “release” signatures. Unless a shorter period is approved by a majority of the participating judges prior to the date the opinion is placed on pre-release, en banc opinions and orders denying rehearing en banc with a concurring or dissenting opinion shall be circulated by the clerk of court for review for a minimum of three full business days before release.
IOP 6.14 | ABSENCE OF A MAJORITY DECISION
You might need to reference it during your pursuit of justice.
For instance, you might need to understand certain IOPs to protect yourself from judges/lawyers who break the law (see this example of a Florida judge who outright committed perjury).
As always, please get the justice you deserve.
Sincerely,
www.TextBookDiscrimination.com


