1,015 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,841 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court denied motions to strike and for default judgment, granted dismissal for claims against the defendant in his official capacity due to lack of notice, but denied dismissal for claims against him in his individual capacity.
-
801 F.2d 1266·
11th Cir.·
1986-10-14
·cited 1×
The dissenting judge holds that psychological harassment by police constitutes an abuse of power and implicates a constitutionally protected interest.
-
796 F.2d 1391·
11th Cir.·
1986-08-14
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his detective position because the city's ordinances and charter treated the position as temporary and discretionary, thus not entitling him to a hearing upon reassignment.
-
Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity for censoring a publication if their actions did not violate clearly established law at the time, and a delay in notifying an inmate of censorship does not constitute a constitutional violation.
-
The court affirmed the granting of a coastal construction permit to the City of Hollywood, finding that the developer, Woodholly Associates, Inc., properly raised the issue of the City's burden to prove the necessity and justification for the development.
-
752 F.2d 546·
11th Cir.·
1985-02-04
·cited 1×
The court held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they acted in good faith and could not have known they were violating clearly established rights under the specific facts of the case.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the action, finding no jurisdiction under the alien tort statute and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim.
-
686 F.2d 264·
5th Cir.·
1982-09-20
·cited 1×
A trial court may not deny a request for appointed counsel in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action solely due to the unavailability of lawyers willing to work for free; the court must determine if exceptional circumstances exist.
-
687 F.2d 44·
4th Cir.·
1982-09-10
·cited 1×
A prisoner's § 1983 action challenging conditions of confinement can be referred to a magistrate without the prisoner's consent, but the district court must conduct a de novo review of factual objections raised by the prisoner.
-
The court held that because the plaintiff did not prevail in his underlying constitutional claim, he is not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988.
-
665 F.2d 395·
1st Cir.·
1981-11-12
·cited 1×
A federal court injunction to compel a state court to conduct proceedings in English is barred by the Younger doctrine, absent compelling circumstances and a showing of irreparable harm.
-
The court affirmed the judgment against deputies Dykes and Binder for false arrest but reversed the judgment against deputy Carr due to lack of evidence of his involvement.
-
A state law that categorically prohibits a parent convicted of a sex offense involving child pornography from residing with or conducting overnight visits with his own child violates substantive due process as applied to a non-contact offender who poses no demonstrable danger to
-
A defendant cannot moot a class action by voluntarily changing the challenged conduct mid-litigation; the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies where the defendant's change in policy resulted from litigation pressure and lacks clear permanence, allowing the class to pursue facial
-
A district court does not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some state-law claims while declining jurisdiction over others after dismissing all federal claims; such claim-by-claim assessment is permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and is not a per se a
-
The district court lacked authority to issue a universal injunction against enforcement of Florida's Protection of Children Act because universal injunctions exceed a federal court's equitable authority under the Judiciary Act, as established in Trump v. CASA, Inc., and no except
-
The district court properly lacked personal jurisdiction over Flight Services International because the company, incorporated and headquartered in Texas, had insufficient contacts with Florida; employees' brief attendance at training sessions in Miami did not establish general ju
-
Officer Grubbs violated Mr. Blasingame's clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force when he tased an unarmed, non-dangerous panhandling suspect fleeing on foot in a vulnerable elevated position (a steep embankment) without warning, and qualified im
-
A plaintiff lacks Article III standing to challenge the government's maintenance of Confederate memorials and street names based on psychological injury from viewing them, as such injury is neither concrete nor particularized but rather a generalized grievance shared by all who o
-
On remand following en banc reversal, the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the en banc opinion that reversed summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
-
A 19-year-old experiencing a mental health crisis was restrained by family members who called 911, and police officers responded and used force including tasers and punches while attempting to detain and handcuff him. The Eleventh Circuit reversed qualified immunity for officers
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the officer's conduct, while egregious, did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore qualified immunity should be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is dismissed with prejudice.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's failure to pay the initial partial filing fee, despite having funds and receiving extensions, warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against a state court and that the petition failed to state a claim under § 1983 due to sovereign immunity and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims regarding his pending state criminal case are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine, and his claim of verbal threats does not state a constitutional violation.
-
The court held that the prisoner's civil rights complaint was subject to dismissal due to improper venue, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey.
-
A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' under the PLRA must pay the filing fee unless alleging imminent danger of serious physical injury, and failure to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a due process violation because he did not allege the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
-
The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and denied his IFP motion due to insufficient documentation.
-
The court held that while some of the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim or due to immunity, others, particularly those alleging excessive force after the plaintiff was subdued, could proceed.
-
A pro se plaintiff cannot seek reconsideration of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 59(e) when no judgment was entered, and a Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and lacks valid grounds.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not properly grieving the alleged failure to protect claim within the required timeframes and with sufficient detail.
-
The court held that the appellant has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his equal protection claim, and therefore denied his emergency motion for a stay of execution pending appeal.
-
The court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding excessive force claims.
-
The court granted the defendant's motion to compel discovery because the plaintiff failed to respond, rendering the motion unopposed.
-
A pro se prisoner's failure to accurately disclose his prior litigation history on the court-approved complaint form warrants dismissal without prejudice, even if the failure was due to a misunderstanding.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's fourth identical complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim and for being barred by res judicata.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's amended civil-rights complaint must be signed under penalty of perjury, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
-
The court held that a pro se litigant's failure to fully and accurately disclose their litigation history, as required by local rules and the court's complaint form, warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents because the defendant failed to respond to the motion within the allotted time.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint seeking monetary damages against state employees in their official capacities must be dismissed for failure to state a claim due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and recommended dismissal with prejudice.
-
The court held that the pro se complaint was deficient and must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, requiring the plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Claims against supervisory defendants Dixon and UCI Warden are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, while claims against other officers will proceed.
-
A prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
-
The court recommends dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.