With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and fees, and that the period of time in which appellant was required to make such payments had since expired. Appellant appeals this order of dismissal, as well as the court’s order of September 2 that placed a lien on his inmate trust account. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his mandamus petition because the Clerk’s Certificate enrolling him into a payment plan did not provide him with notice that partial prepayment was required in order for his action to proceed. The Department concedes that this was reversible error by the trial court. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in imposing a lien on appellant’s inmate trust account. We agree. See Jackson v. McDonough, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2299, - So.2d -, 2006 WL 2527244 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 5, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we (i) reverse the September 2,

A: holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing
B: holding that a prison disciplinary committee violated inmates rights to procedural due process by refusing to call their witnesses even though the disciplinary hearing took place in the aftermath of a riot and the resulting disciplinary caseload was ex tremely heavy
C: holding that placing a prisoner in disciplinary confinement clearly effects liberty interest
D: holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time
D.