of patients in accordance with HRS regulations, Fla.Admin.Code R. 10E-5.061; 2) reporting abuse pursuant to the Florida Adult Protective Services Act, Fla.Stat. § 415.101, et seq.; and 3) raising the deficiencies in the periodic Baker Act hearings held pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 394.467. Plaintiffs argue that none of the specific remedies cited by Defendants are adequate to provide relief for the type of egregious, systemic abuse that Advocacy Center alleges. The Court agrees that these remedies are clearly inadequate in terms of the traditional exhaustion doctrine. See, e.g., Patsy v. Florida Int’l Univ., 634 F.2d 900 (5th Cir.1981) (rehearing en banc), rev’d on other grounds, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982); Shinholster v. Graham, 527 F.Supp. 1318 (N.D.Fla.1981) (<HOLDING>). Patsy lists the five necessary aspects of an
holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding that when an agency fails to follow the proper procedure under the illinois administrative procedure act for the adoption of rules the rule is invalid holding florida administrative procedure act and abuse reporting system inadequate remedies