after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the mandamus count. Thereafter, a second amended complaint was filed which again contained a count against the City for mandamus. The City moved to dismiss Alexander’s second amended complaint arguing that the issuance of a certificate of completion is discretionary and thus an improper subject matter for mandamus. The trial court granted the city’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Alexander now appeals. As this Court has previously stated: “Mandamus is a recognized remedy to require a public official, who is clothed with the authority, to discharge his duty.” City of Miami Beach v. Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners Ass’n., 216 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). See also, e.g., Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So.2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). To that end, an act is deemed ministerial
holding title ix does not support an action against official in an individual capacity holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent holding that mjandamus is a common law remedy used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law holding that the color of law element may be satisfied by the fact that an official gains access to the victim in the course of official duty