DISMISSED. See English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296–97 (Fla. 1977) (explaining that prohibition “is preventive and not corrective,” the purpose of which “is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done”); Sparkman v. McClure, 498 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 1986) (explaining that prohibition “cannot be utilized to revoke an order already entered” and that it “will not lie where the proceedings below have already been completed”).
Per Curiam.
Ray, Jay, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.