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 held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and personal jurisdiction over Chase Bank due to improper service, thus dismissing the complaint.
-
A public defender performing traditional legal functions is not a state actor and therefore cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, being duplicative, and not paying the filing fee.
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.
-
The court held that a detention center is not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that slip-and-fall incidents do not constitute constitutional claims actionable under that statute.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history on the court's required complaint form warrants dismissal without prejudice.
-
The court held that the moving defendants are entitled to summary judgment because no reasonable jury could find they used excessive force, as the evidence showed they used no force or that any alleged force was de minimis.
-
A state department of corrections is not a 'person' amenable to suit for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the county had a policy that violated the decedent's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.
-
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but required an amended complaint because the original complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of medical negligence and delayed medication refills do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's failure to fully and accurately disclose his litigation history, as required by local rules and the court's complaint form, warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation regarding jail visitation.
-
A pro se prisoner's civil rights case can be dismissed without prejudice for failing to accurately disclose prior litigation history on the court-approved complaint form, even if the failure was due to misunderstanding.
-
The court held that a prisoner's amended complaint failed to state a First Amendment claim because being denied a single religious meal did not constitute a substantial burden on his religious practice.
-
A pro se litigant's failure to fully and accurately disclose their litigation history on the court's standardized complaint form, as required by local rules and under penalty of perjury, warrants dismissal of the case without prejudice.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) with conditions, nor in its evidentiary rulings, affirming the trial court's judgments.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
The Court declined to dismiss the case with prejudice, finding that while sanctions were warranted for discovery violations, less drastic measures were appropriate given the circumstances, including the impact of hurricanes and the preference for hearing cases on the merits.
-
The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the decedent's actions in reaching for his handgun created an immediate threat, and thus no constitutional violation occurred. Consequently, the Monell claim against the city also failed.
-
A judge is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in her official capacity, and a state is not a 'person' under § 1983, warranting dismissal of the complaint.
-
The court held that federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state criminal proceedings, and a § 1983 claim is not the proper vehicle to challenge guilt or prosecution.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was deficient for failing to meet federal pleading standards and directed him to amend it.
-
A public defender is not a state actor for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state criminal proceedings.
-
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on most counts, dismissing others for lack of standing, finding the plaintiff forfeited any protected liberty interest in accessing city property due to his trespass violations.
-
A Miranda violation does not give rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a claim based on the Double Jeopardy Clause was not plausibly alleged.
-
The court held that it should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the domestic relations exception because the case is intertwined with ongoing state court child custody and divorce proceedings.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history on the court's complaint form warrants dismissal of his civil rights action without prejudice.
-
The court held that it has jurisdiction over the appeal because the denial of qualified immunity presents issues of law, not solely issues of fact.
-
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because it failed to comply with federal pleading rules and the plaintiff's financial information was inconsistent.
-
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, a prerequisite for injunctive relief.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible § 1983 claim against the defendant in his official capacity due to sovereign immunity and failed to establish supervisory liability. The court also held that state law claims for punitive damages against the defendant
-
The court held that the plaintiff's second amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
-
The court held that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and the First Amendment, and that the school board could not be held liable under § 1983 on theories of ratification or delegation.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-10-24
The court held that a plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims are barred by collateral estoppel because the issue of probable cause was fully litigated and decided in a prior state criminal proceeding. The court also recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was procedurally deficient, failed to state a claim, and constituted an improper shotgun pleading, warranting dismissal.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice because it constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim under many cited statutes, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice.
-
The court held that while a jury could find Officer Samples's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
-
Six female former inmates of the Jasper City Jail sued jail supervisors and the city for sexual abuse perpetrated by jailers under the Eighth Amendment and federal trafficking statute, but the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiffs failed to pro
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary emergency circumstances for proceeding without notice to the defendants. The court deferred consideration of a preliminary injunction pending service and respon
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary causal connection between the actions of the election supervisor and the issuance of a trespass warning and arrest by a police sergeant.
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings is subject to Younger abstention, and claims regarding conditions of confinement must be brought as a civil rights action.
-
The court held that a second amended complaint filed without leave was properly stricken, and that the plaintiff's allegations of a jail officer using fecal matter on handcuffs stated claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force, thus denying qualified immunity at the m
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-09
The court held that a defendant already terminated as a party cannot be dismissed again, and a final judgment is inappropriate when claims were not adjudicated on the merits or dismissed with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-22
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying the motion to unseal photographs, finding no clear error or contrary to law.
-
Nihal Michael Gautam sued the City of Sunrise and multiple police officers under federal civil rights laws and state law, alleging false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, municipal liability, civil RICO violations, and violations of Florida's Public Records Act stemm
-
The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of excessive force and battery.
-
The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and FCRA, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, but failed to state claims for retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and First Amendment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-31
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a seizure for malicious prosecution, that punitive damages were unavailable against the City, that injunctive relief was moot, and that the officer was protected by qualified immunity.
-
The court held that Deputy Barnes is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force was objectively reasonable and not a violation of clearly established law, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a deliberate indifference claim against Sheriff Chronister.